The context for the research reported by this article is the
condition known as electrical sensitivity. A little background research
into that phenomenon would have revealed to the designers of this
experiment that
- sufferers react in very different ways to a wide range of different
electromagnetic frequencies and field strengths
- that many more symptoms than those reported in the article are
commonplace
- that those most debilitated by the condition (and therefore
theoretically most likely to register ‘positive’ results in a trial such
as this) would not be able to travel to the test site because of
generalized surrounding environmental electromagnetic pollution;
consequently the self-selecting group of sensitive people were not
actually that sensitive
- that even less sensitive people often suffer also from chemical and
other environmental intolerances, meaning that they would have experienced
reactions to the presence of such residues as wood resin, paint or
cleaning fluids in the trial location
- that failure to shield the room from other electromagnetic fields
was a sure-fire way of skewing the results!
- that the onset of symptoms can occur many hours after exposure, and
recovery can take anything between one day and three weeks: this renders
the reported results practically meaningless.
Why did the authors of this article not gather information on this
wider context for their work before designing this experiment? An
investigation of this condition which seriously entertained the
possibility that it is ‘physical’ rather than ‘psychological’ would have
had to take account of these essential factors rather than simply
attempting to test the reports of a minute sub-group of sufferers about
their response to one particular kind of electromagnetic pollutant. It is
difficult not to feel that the experiment was indeed planned to
demonstrate that mobile phones do not harm humans – hardly a surprise,
then, that that is exactly what it did. I invite the authors to speculate
on what their experiment would have looked like had some of the funding
for it come from a powerful, multi-million pound industry whose primary
interest was in stopping people from using mobile phones.
Rapid Response:
The issue of bias and experimental method
The context for the research reported by this article is the
condition known as electrical sensitivity. A little background research
into that phenomenon would have revealed to the designers of this
experiment that
- sufferers react in very different ways to a wide range of different
electromagnetic frequencies and field strengths
- that many more symptoms than those reported in the article are
commonplace
- that those most debilitated by the condition (and therefore
theoretically most likely to register ‘positive’ results in a trial such
as this) would not be able to travel to the test site because of
generalized surrounding environmental electromagnetic pollution;
consequently the self-selecting group of sensitive people were not
actually that sensitive
- that even less sensitive people often suffer also from chemical and
other environmental intolerances, meaning that they would have experienced
reactions to the presence of such residues as wood resin, paint or
cleaning fluids in the trial location
- that failure to shield the room from other electromagnetic fields
was a sure-fire way of skewing the results!
- that the onset of symptoms can occur many hours after exposure, and
recovery can take anything between one day and three weeks: this renders
the reported results practically meaningless.
Why did the authors of this article not gather information on this
wider context for their work before designing this experiment? An
investigation of this condition which seriously entertained the
possibility that it is ‘physical’ rather than ‘psychological’ would have
had to take account of these essential factors rather than simply
attempting to test the reports of a minute sub-group of sufferers about
their response to one particular kind of electromagnetic pollutant. It is
difficult not to feel that the experiment was indeed planned to
demonstrate that mobile phones do not harm humans – hardly a surprise,
then, that that is exactly what it did. I invite the authors to speculate
on what their experiment would have looked like had some of the funding
for it come from a powerful, multi-million pound industry whose primary
interest was in stopping people from using mobile phones.
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests