…from a recent work by Ms Joanne Rowling, a housewife in Edinburgh…

The fear of electronic appliances is a real disease with persuasive symptoms, but that doesn’t mean that it has a non-cognitive basis. I used to be scared of the microwave. really.

What reality?

Still, I guess the former approach saves having to actually think about why all these unfortunate people are so distressed – no need to have to think about complicated things like Why Humans Feel Unwell, etc. It’s really hard to explain to people that simple questions – which ought always to be welcomed – don’t always have simple answers.

Para 1: “Following this paper, it is becoming increasingly likely that there is a significant proportion of self-assessed Electrically Sensitive people whose response is entirely nocebo – whether induced by fear of harm or other reasons, the cause is not radiofrequency EMFs.”

That’s a massive concession to make given the veracity of previous arguments made by Powerwatch.

Para 2: “So whilst it cannot be entirely ruled out that a small minority are truly sensitive, the proportions of any truly sensitive people are likely to be far lower than the 3% – 35% that has been quoted.”

Like 0%? This is of course always true – no study can definitively disprove a hypothesis… but you can’t prove to me that there aren’t fairies at the bottom of my garden either.

Perhaps its time for Powerwatch and the associated organisations to embrace the idea of there being a psychological cause of the symptoms suffered by some individuals. Perhaps buying a £70/m^2 piece of screening material isn’t the most cost effective method of dealing with these symptoms after all…

I think the brain cancer over long term (> 10 years) is still a very real risk, though as the latency of brain cancer is 15-25 years typically we really won’t be able to find out for another 6 or 7 years anyway. Initial findings are, IMHO, fairly concerning, but nothing concrete as yet. Of course, perspective needs to be maintained – brain cancer risk is very low anyway, and I’m sure having better diet/exercise will have more of an impact than not using the phone. However, as with smoking, if an increase is found it is still important.

Microwave Syndrome stuff I maintain a fair degree of scepticism over. There are a few studies finding effects epidemiologically, and there really hasn’t been much epi work into base station populations. I’d like to see more of that finding no effect to be honest, as I think enough of the general population are not hypochondriacs to find a non nocebo effect if there is one.

I honestly don’t think double blind trials are the way forward, due to short and acute exposure time and lack of any possible dose buildup (if that is of any relevance, again speculative).

However, it is hard to see what else can be done without the people feeling like they are being exposed and steadily killed / fried / whatever.

My personal position is that acute responses to someone using a phone etc. seem very unlikely, but not entirely impossible — it is not fair to ever expect proof of this – much in the same way as aliens _might_ exist or might _not_ exist, but who can prove they don’t (ok, frankly, I don’t really care about aliens, but some people do)?

I’d like to see more epi work around masts in Europe – especially situations like a town without a mast getting one for the first time in a country that does not particularly believe them to be a risk.

I’ve gone on too long here, sorry about that. Ask other stuff if I haven’t answered things very well.

Best Regards,
- Graham

can you describe an experiment that would convince you that there are no ill effect associated with exposure to wifi/mobile phones?

what experiment would kill your hypothesis dead and change your position on wifi/moible masts etc?

There must be one, otherwise you are operating from a fixed position along the lines of “mobiles can cause illness in some people” which nothing can change.

interesting to hear your thoughts.

No seriously, we have been particularly poor at keeping up with the ES literature, though Rubin’s provocation study was spectacularly badly done.

However, this one was, to be honest, really very good indeed, and credit is due where it is due.

I will try to get our background ES page updated this week – it is quite unreasonable as it stands.

Best Regards,
- Graham
Pow3rwatch

“Conclusion

Following this paper, it is becoming increasingly likely that there is a significant proportion of self-assessed Electrically Sensitive people whose response is entirely nocebo – whether induced by fear of harm or other reasons, the cause is not radiofrequency EMFs.

There are fundamental flaws in the idea of evaluating subjective responses in a double blind system that simply cannot be avoided regardless of the care taken on experiment design (such as the potentially large proportion of nocebo responses). There is also a chance that chronic exposure may give rise to genuine symptoms whereas acute exposure may not, but that cannot be addressed by this study.

So whilst it cannot be entirely ruled out that a small minority are truly sensitive, the proportions of any truly sensitive people are likely to be far lower than the 3% – 35% that has been quoted.”

Have they been “got at” by the telcos?

http://www.ehponline.org/docs/2007/10286/abstract.html

http://www.powerwatch.org.uk/news/20070725_essex_provocation.asp

Best Regards,
- Graham
Pow£rwatch

He’s just gathered together all the medical buzzwords of the day and stuck them in any old how, hasn’t he?

His letter has to be worth a lot of points. [url]badscience.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2714&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=60[/url]

Coool!! Where can I buy one? On your web page? Is it a pendant or a chip?

For anyone interested, check the following verbals from the site – refers to one of the cheapest of BIOPRO’s products, the US$ 34.95 BIOPRO Cell Chip:

http://www.mybiopro.com/BioProTemplate.aspx?ItemID=1450&ID=internalbalance

“Day in and day out, you may be exposing yourself to more stress than you thought by simply using your Cell Phone, PDA or Bluetooth headset, etc. Electromagnetic radiation (EMR) emitted from these devices has been linked to various stress-induced problems and illnesses and could very well be compromising your health and well being. As a leader in the field of bioenergetics, BIOPRO has introduced the BIOPRO Cell ChipTM, the most advanced dual action technology designed to significantly address this newest source of stress in our daily lives.

BIOPRO’s Cell Chip combines the benefits of two powerful, innovative and scientifically substantiated technologies: BIOPRO’s patented noise field nano-technology MRET (Molecular Resonance Effect Technology), and its proprietary subtle energy innovation ERT (Energy Resonance Technology). Individually and collectively, these cutting-edge technologies offer a groundbreaking and effective way to deal with the cumulative stress associated with living in today’s electronic environment.”

Not immediately clear what you are supposed to do with the “Cell Chip”. I wondered if you were supposed to swallow it so that your body would repel the evil rays, but since they sell it in multi-packs I think you must be meant to stick one to each of your evil EMF emitting devices.

My scientific bullsh*t detector was ringing at the combination of “nano-technology” with “Molecular Resonance Effect Technology”, and the following site about the latter speaks for itself:

http://www.honeycombtechnology.com/mret.html

This woeful (Woo-full?) site uses the classic “bogus science” trick of dragging in the names of some eminent real scientists, here Alfred Gilman and (the late) Marty Rodbell, who won the Nobel Prize in 1994 for their discovery of GTP-binding proteins (G proteins) and their role in signal tranduction.

http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/medicine/laureates/1994/

Needless to say their work had nothing whatsoever to do with “resonance effects”, or “magic water”.

I dropped Mast Sanity a line telling them my interest had been piqued:

was reading with interest your press release regarding the expected ‘Essex Study’ results on electrosensitivity, having found them posted on Ben Goldacre’s site:

http://www.badscience.net/?p=466

In this release you state ‘In doing this research one is subjecting the volunteers to harm’, and that therefore it is unethical. I wonder if you could elaborate on why you consider it prima facie to be unethical, perhaps with comparison to other large modern intervention trials? I am particularly interested for example in whether you consider it to be unethical to persist in studying the use of treatments which we know certainly cause some harm, particularly I would be grateful if you could comment on trials of say aspirin, statins and immunosupressant drugs.

I was also interested to note your comments on Rajkovic et al.: ‘evidence showing changes in the important mast cells in human skin’. I wonder if you could provide clarification on which mammalian species the biopsies in the studies given in the linked pdf were from. Certainly from my reading of Int J Rad Biol 81, 7:491 it sould seem the authors were studying Wistar rats. I wonder if you would care to elaborate on the implications of the statistical testing results in this study, and the lack of randomization or blinding protocol?

(needless to say all the numbers came back as NS). I’ll let you know of any response I get if it doesn’t come direct here.

http://www.mybiopro.com/BIOPROventionProgram.aspx?ID=internalbalance

A nice range of magic boxes to neutralise EMF in the home:

http://www.mybiopro.com/BioProTemplate.aspx?ItemID=1166&ID=internalbalance

Some qlink pendant rip offs:

http://www.mybiopro.com/BioProTemplate.aspx?ItemID=842&ID=internalbalance

and the compulsory vitamins.

http://www.mybiopro.com/BioProTemplate.aspx?ItemID=1094&ID=internalbalance

It would be rather a shame if the electrosensitivity evidence started coming back negative.