Re: Essex study [Re: University doing EMF study; any feedback for her?]

[Guest guest]

All those studies are great nonsense.

The techies want ot explain the biological effects with mathematics and physics.

Please do have a look at:

http://www.milieuziektes.nl/Pagina111.html

where I have outlined what is happening with electrosensitives.

Electrosensitives do not react like lamps.

And most researchers do not have any idea what is happening.

So double-blind tests are not neccessary.

A control group is not neccessary, because they have nothing in their body what

can react.

Besides that, most researchers do not know about elektrosmog.

Yesterday I found that an electrical field of 300 V/m, without a magnetical

field, could have a greater impact, than an electrical field of 700 V/m with a

magnetical field.

I measured this on a person.

Most persons do react to a DECT within minutes, and on a GSM mobile phone mast

some hours later.

But I know persons who do not react to a DECT phone, but to a signal of 5.8 GHz

(motion sensor in a lamp).

So, for doing tests, one has to know for which elektrosmog sources the persons

are sensible to, and act accordingly.

Techies don't know about biological effects.

And it is not the amount of elektrosmog which is determining.

Very, very weak signals or frequencies may cause havock. With electrosensitives.

Greetings,

Claessens

member Verband Baubiologie

www.milieuziektes.nl

www.milieuziektes.be

www.hetbitje.nl

checked by Norton

Essex study [Re: University doing EMF study; any feedback for

her?]

Another important feedback to mention is that the often cited Essex study that

claims that people can't tell better than chance that the wireless signal is on

or off is deeply flawed. IIRC, it was:

1. Funded by industry.

2. Didn't achieve the proper number of participants needed for a good

statistical analysis

3. Excluded the people who were too sick to continue and had to drop out

4. Had inadequate washout times -- time is needed for patient recovery in

between exposures to avoid false positives

5. Didn't account for the diverse responses which could be caused by different

levels of sensitization to different frequencies, and possibly

electric/Intermediate Frequencies and other exposures which may have also been

present along with the wireless signal

6. A reanalysis of the study found participants actually could tell better

than chance...

The truth is twisted, again... and doctors are most likely to believe it is a

psychological nocebo effect...

------------------------------------