[LINK] More on EMF sensitivity

[Stewart Fist]

Ivan's Guardian article is most illustrative as to what passes for
scientific journalism these days.

Grandmother surveys, anecdotes, and the imaginary complaints of one teacher
are news.  And they imagine that it is possible to conduct scientific
research on complex subjects in an afternoon, with no real protocols -- and
then extrapolate from these to some vague concept of danger or safety.

Why worry about million dollar funding to highly specialised scientists
working in expensive labs, when you can conduct the experiment yourself with
someone pulling the plug on a router ?

It doesn't occur to them that some people might be sensitive and some not
(as we find in hay-fever, asthma, etc), or that some might have become
sensitised through long-term exposure, or some special type of exposure.

As I've said before, I doubt the WiFi hyper-sensitivity claims are real
physical problems -- but to stupidly dismiss the whole question in such a
cavellier fashion is irresponsible in the extreme for such a newspaper as
the Guardian.

Nowhere in the article does it even consider whether the long-term effects
of such exposure might also be a problem.  It's a bit like saying to
asbestos workers: "If you don't get bad attack of the sneezes whenever you
breath this dust, then it can't be doing you any harm."

-------

Incidentally, did any Linkers watch that ABC program on the forensic use of
Psychics the other night.  Apparently it is part of a series.

I wonder which moron in the ABC bought this.