On Tue, 31 Jul 2007 17:03:53 +0100, Lenny <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:
>copied from a forum (i couldn't have put it better myself)
I wouldn't disagree with that.
>> Yes, this is the study which has been going on for some years at the
>> University of Essex, which various UK ES people have ground their teeth
>> about periodically while it was being done!
In case it didn't come up with the result which suited them. It's
quite a common problem amongst single issue pressure groups whose
members minds are made up and who do not wish to be confused by
facts.
>> 1. It was held at the University site - so anyone with severe ES who can't
>> travel was unable to attend.
That's OK, enough people who claimed to be affected managed to get
there.
>> 2. Five subjects with severe ES who were unable to complete the tests
>> because of the pain experienced were simply excluded from the results.
>> (this info is second hand but I believe originates from Alasdair Phillips
>> of Powerwatch, I have also heard from a separate source that some people
>> were unable to continue)
Some withdrew before blind testing, whether this was due to their
psychological reaction to being told the transmitter was on made them
disinclined to continue or their own realisation that they wouldn't
be able to fiddle the tests and get the results they wanted is
unknown. The number remaining was still sufficient.
>> 3. Exposures were to a given frequency of MW mast signal for a total
>> period of under 1 hour, so that people who were not sensitive to that
>> particular frequency would not register a positive reaction.
The GSM band covers (taking the worldwide extremes) 880MHz to 960MHz.
The UMTS band covers 1885-2200 MHz. Are you seriously suggesting that
people may be sensitive to say 890 MHz but not 891 MHz? The test
included the UMTS as well as the GSM 900 and 1800 Mhz bands.
>> 4. The researchers were psychologists, not medical - which implies a lot
>> about what they expected to find!
It implies nothing, unlike dipstick "activists" they were looking for
objective evidence - not propaganda.
>> Basically, 1 and 2 excluded the people who might be expected to react most
>> strongly (severely ES), and the exposure time was short enough that
>> moderately ES people might not experience a reaction.
All of the so called "ES" subjects claimed to be able tell
immediately they were exposed.
"The open provocation test verified that when sensitive individuals
knew the base station was emitting either a GSM or UMTS signal they
self-reported lower levels of well-being and more symptoms than
during the sham condition. This demonstrated that the laboratory
conditions did not prevent sensitive individuals from reacting to
either the GSM or UMS signals."
>> An interesting parallel that I thought of would be this:
I don't think much thought went into any of those, none of which were
in any way related to this report.
>> Small correction; it actually states in the article that 12 people dropped
>> out of the study due to illness, and 44 "sensitives" and 114 controls were
>> tested. Assuming that those who dropped out were sensitive, it means that
>> over 20% (44 out of 56) of the test group were unable to complete the
>> tests.
That would be consistent with the conclusion of the report that the
ailment is psychosomatic.
>>To then say that only 2 of the remaining 44 could detect
>> the emissions consistently is a rather flawed sample.
Actually none of the self declared "sensitives" could consistently
detect any emissions. The 2 "sensitives" _and_ six controls who
identified the 6 on/off sequences correctly is what you would expect
from random choice.
>I have worked for many years in scientific research
As a cleaner?
--
Peter Parry.
http://www.wpp.ltd.uk/
Similar Threads
Linear Mode
