I’ve just blogged about it here: http://communities.cilip.org.uk/blogs/informationadvice/default.aspx

It seems to me that you are unusually aware of the location of radio masts. There are many causes for scalp complaints, and the very common experience of occasional lightheadedness. The ubiquity of radio masts in the UK will almost certainly allow you to associate any occurrence with them.
Knowledge that the transmitters aren’t there, as was the case in the IoM, will allow you to make a countering case, but how many times have you been unaware of even stronger RF fields, yet suffered no effects?

You saw the mast opposite your work place, but was it radiating your direction or even switched on ?

Three years ago I worked in a building directly opposite a mobile base station (100 metres). After a week or so I began to feel funny sensations. Like I was going to fall over. Also creeping sensations on my scalp. Sore spots on my scalp. I would have difficulty typing on the computer. My head would feel like someone had just hit it with a spoon. All these pains would go when I left the building! But as time went on they took longer to subside. My doctor did not understand but told me one good bit of advice change jobs or get away from the building.

I managed to get work away from that building and felt fine again until 6 weeks ago in my new home. I CAN’T BELIEVE IT.

How I would love people on this website to be true. I wish I was making my illness up!

Please proof that GSM signals are not causing my discomfort. Mobile base stations are like giant ‘pace makers’.

I run almost everything with JavaScript turned off, and if you
don’t you should.

I wanted to comment on the Dr. who got his blog kicked off off the
University of London system.

While I’m mostly in agreement with
his views, he dose’nt help by
(sorry my spellcheck in Firefox
wont spell does’nt
so I quit.

I not accused anyone of being stupid (in fact, the only comment I can see along those lines is your question as to whether I was deliberately being thick), nor have a set out to patronize anyone on here. Some people have been particularly on topic and raised extremely good points that have caused us to update some of the things we have said, and that is undoubtedly a good thing.

We recommended Microwave News because they have been covering the issue for over 25 years and at the very least, have cited numerous relevant papers in their archives than have been brought up here – it was more a “further reading” exercise than pointing to the definitive authority on the subject. Mike Repacholi has publicly criticised Louis Slesin on multiple accounts, and likewise Louis Slesin has accused Mike Repacholi of the same – it’s six of one and half a dozen of the other, so it’s no less biased siding with one side than the other: if you read the criticisms in detail you will find both are fairly well cited.

What exactly does “You people” mean? I have not accused WHO of corruption, industry bias, hidden funding, mass genocide or anything else – where are you getting this claim from exactly?

I do think that your comments are often rude, and it isn’t a matter of sensitivity, but one of productivity. Your comments are not particularly constructive nor are they directed at much other than your perception of our motivation, and it is becoming tiresome reading post after post of ad hominem attacks at either myself or Alasdair.

If I have been patronizing or condescending, then I apologise, but responding in kind is not particularly helpful to anyone.

You have accused Ben Goldacre, numerous times, of not responding to your comments. Yet although he clearly has done so, according to your own links, you persist in complaining that he hasn’t – I assume it’s merely because you don’t like the reply.

I wrote in post 186 that PowerWatch recommends Microwave News as a good starting point “to find out about this vast and complex subject…”. Yet the WHO, in the form of Dr Mike H Repacholi, have been rather less than complimentary about Dr Louis Slesin of Microwave News –

“Louis appeals to people who do not believe in the scientific method for resolving issues. He, like others who are unable to argue a scientific case always claim WHO decisions are industry biased…a completely untrue position. Our Legal Department has clear rules for funding and inputs to the health risk assessment process. WHO scientists working on the EMF Project are and will continue to be unswayed by any special interest group as long as I have input to the process.”

The “others” and “special interest groups” he refers to here are organizations like PowerWatch, are they not?

I know you people always like to intimate the WHO is in the pay of this or that evil empire, but you never put your money where your mouth is and identify the “paymasters” specifically. If someone is corrupt within the WHO and you know about it, surely you have a duty to say who and in what way. Or maybe the anti-wi-fi lobbyists’ evidence for corruption is as incontrovertible as their evidence for the deleterious health effects of “electrosmog”.

Now, if you think this commentary about the attitude of certain single issue lobby groups such as PowerWatch is too rude, and likewise my comments about your communication style, then you really are too sensitive for the job. You seem to be claiming exclusive rights to be dismissive or patronizing while denying the right of others to respond in kind!

I accept, for example, that in the last criticism you have a very good point. I have heard the phrase “multiple times” often enough that I assumed it was more correct, and looking up the words (having seen your response), many is indeed more appropriate – however, to assume my usage was deliberately used to manipulate my wording or mislead is just rather offensive and unsubstantiated.

If you have something particularly useful to contribute I’ll be interested, but please stop wasting everyone’s time with personal attacks.

I know. It’s nothing to do with wi-fi, but it’s still fashionably illiterate, absurdly pretentious and in keeping with your desire to “complicate” matters and sound vaguely intelligent.
I’m sure that for years you would have used the word “many”. It is a good word and more appropriate – but probably not cool or pretentious enough for you any more. It’s a small example but it says a lot about your communication skills and your motives that you want to dress up your language in this way.

For your information, here is the difference.

Multiple:
adj 1. having or involving more than one part, individual, or element
n 2. a number or polynomial which can be divided by another specified one an exact number of times; Example: 6 is a multiple of 2

Many:
adj 1. a large number of; numerous; Example: many times; many people think the government is incompetent
pron 2. a number of people or things, esp. a large one; Example: his many supporters; have as many as you want
3. many a each of a considerable number of; Example: many a man
n 4. the many the majority of mankind, esp. the common people.

However, you are still making schoolboy mistakes – I don’t use the term “schoolboy mistakes” in an attempt to insult you, rather I mean it literally I have already said I’m 100% sure that you have misunderstood or misrepresented the ECOLOG reports. Your response to this is to go to another “e-smog pressure group” website and quote them. School children would get marked down for such poor research. Here are some things that you should have noticed:

1) The Hese site did their own translation of the ECOLOG report. Hey, and guess what? They twisted the translation, especially the summary. For example, Hese use the term “base station” in the translation in places where it’s not present in ECOLOG report. In fact the ECOLOG report mainly refers to Handsets, not really base stations.

2)You could have checked the ECOLOG site itself. Then you would have noticed that they also have a 2006 report that contradicts your claims.

3) You could have checked other sources and you would have noticed that the author of the ECOLOG report, Dr. Peter Neitzke, has said the people should not be worried about mobile base stations. In fact he has on occasion stated that there could be a case for more base-stations to be built.

4)Best and easiest of all, you could have simply contacted ECOLOG or Dr. Neitzke. Checking the source is rule number 1 in this game.

Rather than do any of these things you searched for a site (Hese) that provided “evidence” that would fit your prejudices.

BTW: I would say that ECOLOG are pretty credible. They present a pretty good case for more studies. They are healthy sceptics, they take a scientific approach, they don’t scaremonger and they don’t sell “e-smog” products. Should ECOLOG ever issue a “WiFi is a danger to school children” report, I would take it seriously.

As for evidence, it seems that people want to get Ben to talk about cellphone masts, house wiring, in fact, anything but wi-fi. How about we stick to the issue here? Wi-fi in schools and homes, so what evidence is there?

Sadly, anecdote doesn’t make up for the fact that the panorama ‘experiment’ was not representative of the actual situation and therefore could be highly misleading and shouldn’t have been performed at all. I know several people who were unclear as to where the maximum field strength was on a mobile phone mast after the programme – misleading some people is enough to warrant the criticism.

You can’t even write in English can you! But your lack of literacy aside, Ben Goldacre clearly has responded and no amount of shouting and denials from you will change that, much as you wish that it would.

Keep digging!

In fact, he won’t respond to other people’s criticisms either:
http://members5.boardhost.com/medialens/msg/1180715598.html
http://members5.boardhost.com/medialens/msg/1180716048.html

Considering he has been asked multiple times to respond to the question on evidence and simply ignored or politely declined each request, I can only assume his technical understanding is what is lacking. If I am mistaken then let Ben respond and give his counter to both our article and the two links above, I would be more than happy to see his defences of his own “bad science”.

On the second criticism: Ok, maybe I am entirely mistaken. Maybe it is not common sense for people to think that the area of highest exposure from a mast is actually right next to the transmitter, and that the 100m was used as the point when the main beam reached ground level. Maybe I expect too much of the average layperson, but both a) the other national newspapers, and b) the members of the public I have spoken to on this issue seemed to think it self-evident.

I wasn’t blaming the editing procedures, I was quite happy with them _on the basis that I thought what they were saying was straightforward and logical_. If this is not the case then we are very sorry for misleading people, but I have yet to come across someone misled by this issue.

The issue of RF exposure can get extremely complicated – the principle of why 100m and 1m were used for the mast and laptop respectively I see as common sense.

topazg82: “Sorry Ben, but you simply are out of your depth on these EMF issues.”

And then when that fails we see that the individual resorts to an appeal to ‘common-sense’ to untangle what was truly meant by a comment that was in fact untrue.

topazg82:’I mean, just apply a bit of common sense.’

So Mr Philips (either will do) which is it to be? The issues in the programme are either complex or they are common sense, which is it?

And what is common sense? Is it really common sense to know the inverse relationship of signal strength with distance? Of course it isn’t for most people. Common sense is in fact far from common, it is totally individual. I’m afraid blaming the editing procedures of making TV programmes just shows that you aren’t capable of representing yourself properly on television – your fault.

Dr Mike H Repacholi, Coordinator, Radiation & Environmental Health Protection of the Human Environment World Health Organization, writing about Dr Louis Slesin of Microwave News in response to Dr Slesin’s petition to remove him from the WHO.

Powerwatch recommends Microwave News as a good starting point “to find out about this vast and complex subject…”. One activist individual recommending another, of course.

“Actually Ben, you will notice there is a big “Send Powerwatch Feedback” button on the page should you wish to use it.”

Is that what you think constitutes a debate, or public disagreement? A Feedback button? Are you being deliberately thick?

I agree that a number of sources in the Table should not be described as “studies” within the scientific use of the word. I have now changed the language to make that clear.

I also see that the sentence re mobile phones and masts was not even grammatical English. I have reworded that. Also the ECOLOG Report assessed many more types of studies than the few (2 only, then!) epi studies. I now see that the full English translation of the ECOLOG Report is now downloadable from the h-e-s-e website:

http://www.hese-project.org/hese-uk/en/niemr/ecologsum.php

I hope this helps the information flow. People can read what ECOLOG says for themselves.