Slashdot Mirror
Cell Towers Not Responsible For Illness
drewmoney notes a BBC article on a major UK study of whether cell towers (or "mobile phone masts" as they are called in the UK) cause illness. The study concluded strongly that symptoms of illness caused by mobile phone masts are all in the mind. People claiming sensitivity to radio emissions showed more symptoms in trials, according to the article, whether signals were being emitted or not. Quoting: "Dozens of people who believed the masts triggered symptoms such as anxiety, nausea and tiredness could not detect if signals were on or off in trials. However, the Environmental Health Perspectives study stressed people were nonetheless suffering 'real symptoms.' Campaign group Mast Sanity said the results were skewed as 12 people in the trials dropped out because of illness."
I think the Independent article that claimed that that was proven was later shown to have been based on misinterpreting the results of a scientific study. I seem to remember the original story and update were both on Slashdot.
Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley
[This post is in the public domain (copyright-free) unless otherwise stated]
That was not the reason for the test....
They tested a short-term effect claimed by people who call themself 'sensitive' to RF transmitters.
Those people claim that those transmitters have an almost immediate effect on them.
When a short term effect is claimed, you test for that short term effect.
And in this case when they properly blinded those people they found no short term effect.
Simple summary: The short term effect claimed by these people is bullshit, there might or might not be a long term effect but this test doesn't cover it in any way.
Secure messaging: http://quickmsg.vreeken.net/
Amateur radio operators suffer from the same problem. Put up a visible antenna and you will get blamed for all sorts of problems with your neighbors' stereos and television sets, none of which have any correlation to an active transmitter. Normally intelligent people will convince themselves that you are the cause of their problems, and even make threats, while refusing to listen to any evidence that exonerates the amateur radio operator.
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
To address the question in the subject line - bad reporting. There was a much better radio interview on BBC Radio 4 with one of the researchers, and a representative from one of the mast pressure groups.
IIRC, it was acknowledged all round that the test was well conducted and that the methodology was sound. The primary criticism raised was that the test didn't account for long term exposure effects. The researcher conceded that proper controls were problematic in a case like this; that more research was needed into long term effects, and that a double blind test would also be useful. The possibility of confirmation bias among those complaining of ill-health due to EM radiation was also discussed.
The problem here seems to be the Beeb web page punching up the headlines, and then Slashdot exacerbating the effect by further sensationalising things. At the end of the day, the result didn't prove anything other than the fact that people don't seem to be able to consciously detect when a phone mast is on or off, and the researchers seem quite happy with that result.
That said, I was listening with half an ear whilst driving home down the A19, so I may have some of the details wrong. Take it for what it's worth....
Don't let THEM immanentize the Eschaton!
Did you even read the study? It wasn't investigating diseases, it was investigating electro-sensitivity to see if it was a real effect or a psychological effect.
They did a non-blinded and a blinded run. When the subjects knew the field was on or off, their symptoms correlated with it (not surprising). When they didn't know, their symptoms DIDN'T correlate with the field. That suggests the symptoms aren't caused by the field, but by their knowledge of it.
You can find a link to the study on this page:
http://www.badscience.net/?p=470