I’ve just blogged about it here: 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 ?

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.

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.

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!

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.

Secondly, you are quite clearly enjoying your own set of ad hominem attacks, so criticising us of doing so is somewhat hypocritical – at least we don’t keep changing the contents of our news entry.

Also, is there any reason why you continue to post the same link to our site again and again? Is it your way of being facetious based on the “hawking all of the internet” remark?

www.powerwatch.org.uk/news/20070529_panorama_extra.asp

that’s where your criticisms are. that’s where people link to. don’t pretend we can post there when we can’t.

in contrast, you’re very welcome to post and discuss here, and similarly, i am very keen for people to read your criticisms of my ideas (although i thought your unfounded personal attacks and smears, which you’ve taken down after my emails, were a bit weakminded).

www.powerwatch.org.uk/news/20070529_panorama_extra.asp

BTW, I have already written to Bad Science about feedback and discussion about a week ago: anyone, including you, is welcome to discuss these matters here:

www.powerwatch.org.uk/columns/aphilips/viewcomments.asp?viewBlog=33

As to hawking my response “all over the internet”, I have, in fact, just asked one of the Mast Sanity people to add it next to their google link to the panorama video. I fail to see how that justifies your description. Any other links have come because people have seen my response and added the link – not by request from me. I am sure that all the links to your bad science pages do not come from you “hawking bad science all over the internet”…. or maybe they do.

The good news is I just saw a TV advert by PC World and they have got yellow ones. Well, orangey yellow. But that’s still better, isn’t it?

i must say, for a man who won’t even permit responses and free debate on his “dismissal” of my “claims” (the link to which i see you’ve been hawking all over the internet) you’re jolly impatient about getting your own posts up on my website.

www.powerwatch.org.uk/news/20070529_panorama_extra.asp

(you’re very welcome by the way).

June 4, 2007 at 12:07 pm

ayupmeduck

Thanks for finding the text error re the “several thousand qualified German medical doctors”. That should have been changed to match the the longer piece on Freiburger later in our document. Here it clearly states “October 2002″ and “200 medical practitioners”. The “over 2000″ was widely circulated and we unfortunately picked it up and used it, despite not receiving adequate replies to our enquiries for a copy of the up-to-date list. I did get to see a list when it had about 2500 signatures on it, but it was clear than many of those were not medical practitioners, so I reduced the number back to the original 200 whose names you can see on the original Appell. I missed the earlier reference in the text. A mistake, sorry.

As to including it in my list of studies I have no problem. It was anecdotal information from a reasonably good source, just like the Bavarian GPs letter to Stoiber with graphs of their patients symptoms plotted against power density of microwaves in their homes. Grey literature should be consulted, especially when the proper studies are not being carried out. See my next posted comment about this issue.

You write:
“If you can’t find that, perhaps we can go on to the next paragraph in your document? You say ‘T-Mobile comissioned a scentific report that concluded that mobile phone handsets masts contribute to cancer’. That is odd that you claim this because the reported source (Peter Neitzke at ECOLOG) says in their 2006 report that there is not enough data to prove a clear link between cancer and mobile base stations. How do explain this?”

Actually, that next paragraph in our article has, in quotes and italics, a direct (translated) quote from the ECOLOG report which state almost exactly the same thing.

Anyway, here are some more extracts from the ECOLOG Report (of which I have copies in German and English):

Mobile Telecommunications and Health – Ecolog Institute – April 2000

CH7
Health Risks to Humans Resulting from Exposure to the Electromagnetic Fields of Mobile Telecommunications

Cancer

Given the results of the present epidemiological studies, it can be concluded that electromagnetic fields with frequencies in the mobile telecommunications range do play a role in the development of cancer.

The results of the studies for all stages of cancer development from the damage of the genetic material via the uninhibited proliferation of cells and debilitation of the immune system (see below) up to the manifestation of the illness prove effects at power flux densities of less than 1 W/m2. For some stages of cancer development, intensities of 0.1 W/m2 or even less may suffice to trigger effects.

Experiments on animals prove harmful effects on the immune system from circa 1 W/m2; at power flux densities of 0.2 W/m2 higher secretions of stress hormones in humans have been demonstrated.

Effects of high frequency electromagnetic fields on the central nervous system are proven for intensities well below the current guidelines. Measurable physiological changes have been demonstrated for intensities from 0.5 W/m2. Impairments of cognitive functions are proven for animals from 2W/m2.

Exposures from Base Stations

In humans, harmful organic effects of high frequency electromagnetic fields as used by mobile telecommunications have been demonstrated for power flux densities from 0.2W/m2 (see Chapter 7). Already at values of 0.1 W/m2 such effects cannot be excluded. If a security factor of 10 is applied to this value, as it is applied by ICNIRP and appears appropriate given the current knowledge, the precautionary limit should be 0.01W/m2.

This should be rigorously adhered to by all base stations near sensitive places such as residential areas, schools, nurseries, playgrounds, hospitals and all other places at which humans are present for longer than 4 hours.

We recommend the precautionary limit of 0.01 W/m2 independent of the carrier frequency. The rough dependency on frequency with higher limits outside of the resonance range, as it is applied in the concept of SAR, is not justifiable given the results of the scientific studies which conclusively prove non-thermal effects of high frequency fields. Also, the current allowed higher exposures for parts of the body, as long as they refer to the head or thorax are not justifiable.

Extracted from the ECOLOG Report, commissioned by T-Mobile, and available (but supressed) in late 2000. Finally leaked and put into the public domain.

To avoid the double post, here is a screenshot taken whilst it was still there earlier:

www.powerwatch.org.uk/images/20070604_badscience.png