I was wondering how long it would take someone to post this as a typical "make your blood boil, look at these idiots" bit. As usual, the people who get angry are the ones who are idiots.
It pays to see who does underwrite those studies; Motorola has underwritten a number of studies that say cell phones and whatnot are safe; do I believe them?
About as much as I believe Monsanto says Round UP herbicide is safe.
About as much as I believe Monsanto says Round UP herbicide is safe.
Research into this area suggests that most of the people affected have been exposed to chemicals, usually in an industrial setting or via cleaning products. For reasons that are not understood this causes them to be sensitive to certain types of EMF under certain conditions.
Actually, it's quite interesting that you keep talking about beliefs. I never used that word ...
Right, and you just ignore the ones that contradict your beliefs.
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Electromagnetic+hypersensitivity+who&l=1
Also, it's mentioned in the BBC article, the very first link in the very first post.
In the UK, electromagnetic hypersensitivity is not a recognised condition.
That's because Public Health England says there is no scientific evidence that electromagnetic fields damage people's health.
The WHO agrees and believes more research on long-term health effects needs to be done.
The majority of studies indicate that EHS individuals cannot detect EMF exposure any more accurately than non-EHS individuals. Well controlled and conducted double-blind studies have shown that symptoms were not correlated with EMF exposure.
[...]
EHS has no clear diagnostic criteria and there is no scientific basis to link EHS symptoms to EMF exposure. Further, EHS is not a medical diagnosis, nor is it clear that it represents a single medical problem.
Conclusions from scientific research
In the area of biological effects and medical applications of non-ionizing radiation approximately 25,000 articles have been published over the past 30 years. Despite the feeling of some people that more research needs to be done, scientific knowledge in this area is now more extensive than for most chemicals. Based on a recent in-depth review of the scientific literature, the WHO concluded that current evidence does not confirm the existence of any health consequences from exposure to low level electromagnetic fields. However, some gaps in knowledge about biological effects exist and need further research.
[...]
There is little scientific evidence to support the idea of electromagnetic hypersensitivity. Recent Scandinavian studies found that individuals do not show consistent reactions under properly controlled conditions of electromagnetic field exposure. Nor is there any accepted biological mechanism to explain hypersensitivity. Research on this subject is difficult because many other subjective responses may be involved, apart from direct effects of fields themselves. More studies are continuing on the subject.
About as much as I believe Monsanto says Round UP herbicide is safe.
I will say this;
Much of what we "Think" is scientifically conducted studies is little more than propaganda.
I was wondering how long it would take someone to post this as a typical "make your blood boil, look at these idiots" bit. As usual, the people who get angry are the ones who are idiots.
The WHO recognizes this condition. There have been tests where it has been determined to exist in controlled conditions: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21793784
Note that in that test they found that the woman in question was sensitive to the EMF being turned on or off, but not to it simply being on or off. Since many wireless devices are quite aggressive about power management these days that happens a lot.
Research into this area suggests that most of the people affected have been exposed to chemicals, usually in an industrial setting or via cleaning products. For reasons that are not understood this causes them to be sensitive to certain types of EMF under certain conditions.
I can see this being the next CFS (ME). Dismissed at first, most doctors refused to believe it, but now recognized and starting to be understood. I happen to suffer from that and I'm just glad mine developed in the 2000s and not 10 years earlier when I would probably have been told it was psychological and dismissed.
About as much as I believe Monsanto says Round UP herbicide is safe.
I will say this;
Much of what we "Think" is scientifically conducted studies is little more than propaganda.
But even the propaganda study from the other side of the RoundUp argument actually showed that male mice drinking Round Up suffered less cancers and there was no ill effects in either gender, well when you took into account the line of mice used are purposely bred for their absurdly high spontaneous cancer rates and they were left alive much longer than anybody except for the Big Organic industry would count as ethical...
And I can't believe I just stuck up for Monsanto.
Mojo Chan, the science is settled with numerous researches. Don't be a science denier.
When you start really looking at this stuff you realise that there is a lot of stuff that medical science doesn't understand. The diagnosis for Reiter's is "eliminate all other possibilities". It's been known about for 100 years, and that's the state of the art.
I'm not saying that EM sensitivity is what people claim it is necessarily, but there is compelling evidence that there is something happening here. The court has accepted expert advice on that.
No, you are missing the point. Anyone can post a link to their favourite PubMed study, it doesn't really prove anything. There have been many studies that have not found any correlation.
The point is that while people may not be able to detect EM emissions, in that and a few other tests they have been able to detect a change in EM emissions. So your ability to point to studies that tested the former does not disprove the latter.
You need to do a survey of all the literature in order to draw any conclusion. That's why WHO's opinion is of value since their recommendations are typically based on a systematic literature review performed by experts in the field.QuoteThat seems a bit contradictory from the first statement, no?
Nope. The WHO recognises the condition. The UK doesn't, buy the WHO does. It says that more research is needed and that there is no scientific explanation at the moment, but it still recognises that the condition exists, even if it is psychological.
As I said, we have been here before. With CFS initially it was dismissed because there was no scientific explanation (still isn't well understood) and there is no known test that can detect it.
I actually have two such conditions. I also have Reiter's, for which there is no test and no scientific explanation. There might be one day because it is related to lupus, and is known to be some kind of autoimmune problem, but there isn't much effort going into research.
When you start really looking at this stuff you realise that there is a lot of stuff that medical science doesn't understand. The diagnosis for Reiter's is "eliminate all other possibilities". It's been known about for 100 years, and that's the state of the art.
I'm not saying that EM sensitivity is what people claim it is necessarily, but there is compelling evidence that there is something happening here. The court has accepted expert advice on that.
Either way, if you know anything about RF you'd know that a cell phone or WiFi router doesn't even remotely have the power to affect human tissue (beyond *possibly* heating a small area a fraction of a degree, which is negligible).
My money is on psychosomatic issues. The brain is a powerful thing; there's a story from WW2 where a GI had been shot, but the field hospital was out of morphine, so the nurse injected him with saline and his pain went away. So, his brain thought it was getting morphine and either started ignoring the pain signals, or more likely dumped a load of endorphins (which is essentially endogenous morphine) and that stopped his pain.
Say what?
Say what?
It's in his mind only. In the hospital scene the doctor turned on the electric switch but he didn't notice it.
Wasn't there a story a while ago about a town where lots of people started complaining of symptoms when a new antenna tower was built, but it later transpired that it wasn't even turned on at the time?
It's not like it would be hard to test this - there are plenty of screened EMC test chambers around the world, so would not be unreasonable to require anyone claiming benefits to be tested.
Though I'm sure some people would claim they got symptoms from proximity to spiky foam absorbers...
Mojo, you are a complete spacker. Your determination to rally against pretty much everything makes you look somewhat idiotic. Electro hypersensitivity is complete bollocks, your one favourite study (with a sample size of one) proves nothing.
The woman in the article clears has mental health issues, but it's nothing to do with Big Electro beaming nasty Frequencies into her head...
Wasn't there a story a while ago about a town where lots of people started complaining of symptoms when a new antenna tower was built, but it later transpired that it wasn't even turned on at the time?
It's not like it would be hard to test this - there are plenty of screened EMC test chambers around the world, so would not be unreasonable to require anyone claiming benefits to be tested.
Though I'm sure some people would claim they got symptoms from proximity to spiky foam absorbers...
That's exactly what they did in the study I linked to earlier. They found that while the test subject couldn't tell if there was an artificial EMF field or not, they could tell when it was turned on or off.
Mojo, you are a complete spacker. Your determination to rally against pretty much everything makes you look somewhat idiotic. Electro hypersensitivity is complete bollocks, your one favourite study (with a sample size of one) proves nothing.
The woman in the article clears has mental health issues, but it's nothing to do with Big Electro beaming nasty Frequencies into her head...