|
Post Time: 11/08/2007 21:25:47 |
tom1
Total Forum Posts: 7 |
Hi,
I'm new to the whole EMF/health issue and am still trying to wrap my head around it. I've been reading the articles on your site and others, and the Stewart Report, the Sage Report, Brodeur etc.... Absorbing the science to the point where one isn't reliant on taking one authorities word over anothers clearly requires a significant amount of time. I'm sure I will feel the need to bug you with Science questions shortly, but right now I've got a couple of questions about the debate itself.
1. One of the more arguments is that The Precautionary Principle should be applied and that, for the sake of argument, WiFi in should not be put in schools, until further research has confirmed that it's safe. Do you have any kind of feeling for what the timescale on that might be?
2. There is a lot of talk about conspiracies in relation to all of this that I confess I'm not very comfortable with. Is there any evidence to support this, or is the deduction that if there wasn't a conspiracy then the scientific establishment would acknowledge the evidence that is before them?
Many thanks in advance. I'm having great fun with my EMF meter from EMField. It turns out there is a power line running down two sides of my local Primary School generating 350nT on the ground.
Tom |
|
Post Time: 15/08/2007 13:54:18 |
topazg
Total Forum Posts: 13 |
Hi there, sorry about the delay in responding!
1) It is difficult to put a time-scale on it. Firstly, it would be hard to ask for confirmation of safety - in all fairness this is unlikely to be possible. However, at the moment there is simply no scientific literature at all (as far as I am aware) into WiFi of any kind. This at the very least should be addressed before a nationwide rollout of WiFi is implemented. Timescale depends on the amount of time taken for Universities to do the research, but probably 36 months is achievable.
It is also important to discuss and resolve why some of the studies have found statistically significant damaging effects from microwave radiation levels similar to those that one would expect from using a WiFi enabled laptop. These include, but are not limited to, microwave syndrome effects (headaches, excessive tiredness, depressions etc..) and cellular effects such as actual secondary DNA damage (TNO study for example). If these are real effects, and can be replicated at WiFi levels, then this should be enough of a reason simply not to use the technology in schools. If there are not real effects, then there should be good arguments presented as to how these "false positives" were found.
All in all there is far too much literature finding an effect to be easily dismissed, and the precautionary principle seems appropriate at this time.
2) I totally agree, I hate the conspiracy theories flying around this. I personally don't buy into the whole thing per se: if the science is bad, then it should be criticised appropriately, if it is good, then it doesn't matter who funded it. However, I will also agree that the deduction does seem to be largely based on a) there is a definite trend towards industry funded studies "not finding anything", for whatever reason, and b) it is strange that so much of the scientific establishment refuse to comment on the studies that are finding an effect, apart from to say "yes, but other studies didn't".
Glad you are having fun with the meter, and don't hesitate to ask more questions :)
Best Regards,
- Graham |
|
Post Time: 15/08/2007 18:05:21 |
tom1
Total Forum Posts: 7 |
Graham,
1) Doesn't the 36 months assume that a significant result, one way or another, is quickly accepted? I'm still too new to this issue to speak confidently, but my impression is that that isn't very likely. To some extent the late 70's power lines argument is still ongoing isn't it?
2)
a. I am still reading up on the research and in no way near having Gods eye view of it, but it seems to me that the argument about industry studies finding nothing cuts both ways. Why do independent studies find things?
On a side note, there seems to be a strong association between the anti-EMF position and a belief in healing auras (I'm halfway through The Body Electric + I've been reading the biogs on the HESE UK website). There also seems to be a feeling (same sources) that Science needs to be more open to anecdote and phenomenon that aren't replicable under controlled conditions. This vaguely reminds me of something on feminist epistemology that I read years ago, but I digress.... A lot of people central to the anti-EMF cause are listed on the HESE site. How central is this viewpoint to Powerwatch and to the anti-EMF community as a whole?
Don't worry about the speed of response. Your last email was very informative.
Regards and thanks,
Tom |
|
Post Time: 23/08/2007 15:22:37 |
Jean Philips
Total Forum Posts: 22 |
Tom,
1) Many of the scientific research papers do not result in 'significant' findings. If Graham's suggestion of 36 months is from funding to publication, it is important to know whether any funding has been made available to even start the process. Otherwise, it will be 36 months from an unknown start to a probable uncertain published conclusion. On the whole, the scientific community would not reach a definitive conclusion on the basis of one study, anyway. So there would need to be a collection of 'good' studies all pointing significantly in the same direction to make a convincing case. I see no evidence of that beginning as yet, but it may be happening somewhere with little publicity.
You make an excellent comment about the power line debate, which was kicked off in the public domain by Wertheimer and Leeper in 1979. The Government's SAGE committee (which includes Powerwatch representation) is still undecided (despite hotly debated discussions) about whether to include the links research has suggested between EMFs and any illness other than childhood leukaemia. On a cost-benefit analysis, that would mean that it would be too expensive to do anything about the electricity distribution situation, as too few lives would be saved for the money expended! If you include depression, etc. the maths come out very differently, but there are commercial interests that have a very loud voice. This is likely to be similar in the case of WiFi in schools.
2)I agree with Graham's comment that good science is good science whoever funds it and vice versa. If the research protocol, data and analyses are made available to the general scientific community and the researchers are open about answering probing questions ( big 'ifs'), then there should be room for a far-reaching and forward-moving debate. I am ever the optimist!!!!
I cannot answer for the connection between anti-EMFs and healing auras. I am personally not anti EMFs. I believe we must be very careful about the introduction of any new environmental agent when we have not tested the effects on the living world.
Human Biology is very complex on its own, and when we add a mixture of environmental physics to the body's electrical communication systems and environmental chemicals to the body's chemical signalling systems, our ability to comprehend what is happening is stretched beyond our current limit of knowledge. It feels like the scientists from different disciplines do not talk enough to each other and may have a very knowledgable but narrow view from their own expert position, and those who take a more holistic view often prefer to ignore the guidelines and 'limitations' of scientific enquiry, which does not enhance their credibility.
I do however, feel that there are 'more things in heaven and earth than are dreamed of in our philosophy' so I would not exclude healing auras and other intangible from the scientific debate just because I do not understand them.
Powerwatch does not have a viewpoint that is set in concrete. We are open in debate to cogent well-reasoned viewpoints and our stance has changed over the 18+ years of its existence. I hope we reflect this on our website and information. I am afraid the rest of the debating community will have to be seen the same way, as I expect we have points of divergence, as groups, and without doubt as individuals. Perhaps you could point out if disparities are troublesome and we can enter a fuitful discussion?
Best wishes
Jean |
|
Post Time: 26/08/2007 20:00:39 |
tom1
Total Forum Posts: 7 |
Jean,
Many thanks for your reply. Your analysis of the precautionary principle situation was very helpful.
I am certainly in agreement with your Hamlet quote. The subjective experience of self-consciousness most definitely falls outside anything that I can imagine Science being able to explain or test.
On a more concrete note, on p.27 of 'Electrical Hypersensitivity, a Modern Illness' you talk about EHS sufferers possibly having ESP. You also mention homoeopathy, acupuncture, magnetic therapy, healers and spiritual healers in the same document in a considered, but positive tone. Certainly more positively than you mention cognitive behavioural therapy (p.231 of the Powerwatch Handbook). All of this seems to fit into the ideas of a geomagnetic field expressed by Becker in Cross Currents. Presumably Ingrid Pastl-Dickenson of the HESE and formerly MastSanity would have a similar view?
I guess my question is, in what sense do you (and Powerwatch) subscribe to the existence of these phenomenon and this viewpoint? Judging by the equivocal way in which you handle it I presume you aren't absolutely convinced?
I hope I'm not coming across as too aggressively anti-electrosensitivity here. I would ordinarily feel that belief in ESP was irrelevant, but in the case of Dr Becker, the HESE and I think Dr Blackwell as well (so much to read and so little time), the whole issue of electromagnetic fields and health seem to form part of a much larger vision. At the moment I am almost as far from getting an overview of the evidence that isn't pre-chewed by somebody else as I was when I started. I feel I am genuinely open minded as to whether EMF has a significantly negative impact on health. As an outsider though, it seems very strange for MastSanity to have had a Reiki therapist as their Director of Science Studies.
Again, thank you for the discussion thus far.
Tom |
|
Post Time: 05/09/2007 13:59:48 |
Jean Philips
Total Forum Posts: 22 |
We probably need to make a distinction between 'me' and 'Powerwatch'. Alasdair and I wrote the Electrical Hypersensitivity book as two individuals. Many of the ideas in the book about complementary therapies have been offered to us by ES sufferers who believe they have benefitted. There are some therapies I feel have a better track record than others, but I felt it inappropriate to push my viewpoint which could turn out to be way off the mark. CBT also has its place (I used it quite a lot when I had a psychotherapy practice. It must not be seen as a 'told you it was all in the mind' response, though.
I do not know the stance of HESE and MastSanity as organisations, or individuals. Powerwatch retains a purely scientific approach, and does not feel qualified to comment on complementary practice and alternative healing.
You are so right about the 'chewed over' nature of much of the 'evidence' both for and against. There is a lot of it out there, and people want 'easy to read' synopses. Chewed over - here we come.
Sorry, unhelpful, but the reality.
All the best
Jean |
|
Post Time: 13/09/2007 11:32:33 |
tom1
Total Forum Posts: 7 |
Jean,
You are right that I am blurring the line between you and Powerwatch. The homeopathy/cognitive therapy thing does come <I don't have the book on me, so I'm going from memorry> from the Powerwatch Handbook though, which got me to thinking that Powerwatch held some kind of view on it. I completely accept however that individual members of Powerwatch may hold different opinions, people's views can change over time and the way you express your views to someone suffering from ES is, quite rightly, different to the way you express them to me. I'm not trying to nitpick.
I agree with your 'all in the mind' statement. Given the extent to which stress is involved in the explanations of how ES may be triggered, acknowledging the effectiveness of a talking cure isn't the same as denying that ES is everything that Becker, or whoever, claim it is.
I've been having a related conversation with Henrik at mast-victims.org. One of the things that I've taken from that is that 'Science' is not a precisely defined term (perhaps not a very novel discovery). One of the points of divergence seems to be how one handles a claim by a large body of people that goes against the prevailing theory and doesn't reproduce reliably under controlled conditions. Claims about the effectiveness of homeopathy seem to me to be structurally analogous to claims about the causes of ES. I guess I was using what I took to be Powerwatch's position on homeopathy to infer Powerwatch's definition of Science. I guess what I'm wondering is what is Powerwatch's definition of Science?
By the way, I think I'm coming to the end of the popular science books on this (I'm getting close to finishing Carlo's Invisible Hazards of the Wireless Age). My intention is to start digging into the studies. At the moment the plan is to start with the EHS provocative studies as it seemed like a relatively finite topic to begin with. Is this a reasonable starting point?
Many thanks for the education you're giving me,
Tom |
|
Post Time: 13/09/2007 16:24:44 |
Jean Philips
Total Forum Posts: 22 |
This may be a bit of a get-out, but the Powerwatch Handbook was named by the publishers and not by us. We would not necessarily have chosen it, but that was a couple of years ago, who knows what we would choose now.
What is Powerwatch's definition of Science? Graham will be a better one on that, I think. He is a scientist and a philosopher. I'll nudge him to give you a view.
Other members of Powerwatch have written (and often edit) the piece on Electrical Sensitivity on Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrical_sensitivity There are references at the end which you may not have looked at as yet.
Provocation studies may be a starting point, but it is a difficult approach for people with EHS as many are unable to cope with such an insult to their overburdened biology.
Best wishes
Jean |
