[LINK] electromagnetic fields effect brain activity

Stephen Loosley stephen at melbpc.org.au
Sun Dec 31 02:24:27 AEDT 2006

At 01:05 PM 30/12/2006, Stewart writes:

>> Would you agree with the Swiss report wherein they assert, 'The
>> results showed for the first time that pulse modulation of the EMF
>> is necessary to induce changes in the waking and sleep EEG.'?
> Pulse modulation (GSM) does appear to add another low-frequency
> problem to the potential for R/F biological interactions.
> But, as for the rest, I have no way of making an 'agree / disagree'
> decision. I think it is possible that EMF has a direct effect on EEGs,
> but that would be the least of my concerns about all the science to do
> with the long-term adverse health effects cellphones. But for a number
> of reasons I continue to sit on the fence:

Fair enough, and from another direction, the mind rather than the mobile,
all such evidence of human extra-sensory 'interaction' presents excellent
new human-brain adventures, (12Hz pulse-rates?) to know how, and why.

It's possible that a scrambled EEG is the brain trying to read the signals.

As for mobiles I don't mind, a $10 ear/mike should solve most problems.

But, scientifically, I wonder if extra-sensory interaction cay be perception
can be communication? It all seems too important for fences, Stewart :-)

(lapsed member Australian Psychological Society etc)

1. There's such a lack of money in doing independent research of this kind,
>so most of these findings are statistically marginal, and not very
>convincing when the various findings from many scientists are consolidated.
>Very rarely are positive findings followed up and confirmed because the
>cellphone companies aren't going to fund this research.  And what
>independent researcher at a university would spend his limited funds just
>checking someone else's work ?
>2. Also, scientists/adademics doing this kind of independent research are no
>more trustworthy, in my opinion, than the average ambitious person in any
>field of business. They are often willing to cut corners (and often need to)
>or slightly 'modify' results to get noticed.
>They often need to generate some 'sensational' finding just to maintain
>their positions in a university, because they live or die on the basis of
>how often their work is cited by others.
>3. Some of the most intelligent - and some of the most stupid - people I
>have ever met are involved in scientific research. You don't need to be that
>smart to get a PhD these days in America, and if you are dubious about being
>able to make a living out in the wider world, the idea of doing university
>research has many attractions.
>I've been at many scientific/medical conferences over the years, and so I
>can report with confidence that many of them do live in ivory towers and
>lack basic common-sense. Many are extremely gullible (especially when it
>comes to dealing with PR people and journalists).  And most have exaggerate
>beliefs as to their own ability to make judgements and decisions on the
>basis of very little evidence.
>4. The idea that all good scientists follow strict protocols ('blind trials'
>etc) is dubious.  Also, the idea that scientists read all the relevant
>material generated in their field is ridiculous these days - they only read
>abstracts and the occasional full paper.
>In my opinion, most of this science would benefit by fewer scientists and
>less (but better) research.
>5. Scientific methods are relatively effective when the consequences are
>catastrophic and obvious - diseases of children, etc.   But the methodology
>hasn't evolved to deal with long-term insidious problems - problems which
>cumulate over a life-time.  It took 50 years for the public health people to
>take action against asbestos, and even longer for tobacco.
>It looks as if EMF effects are likely to be of this kind, but we can't be
>6. Scientific publications can't always be trusted.  The peer review process
>in some areas of public health concern (tobacco and cellphones stand out
>here) have often been taken over by the industry concerned.
>This is done by company-funding of specialist peer-review magazines, funding
>of research for the editors, control of speakers at conferences, etc. And by
>industry alliances with very shonky scientists.  Science-for-sale is an
>expanding industry.
>7. Those researchers with sufficient funding to perform the good, convincing
>scientific research in the EMF area, usually work for the cellphone industry
>under contracts which allow the companies to suppress or rewrite any adverse
>findings.  So we often only see one side of the picture.
>I can give you examples of all of these.
>Stewart Fist, writer, journalist, film-maker
>70 Middle Harbour Road, LINDFIELD, 2070, NSW, Australia
>Ph +61 (2) 9416 7458
>Link mailing list
>Link at mailman.anu.edu.au

More information about the Link mailing list