Cell Towers Not Responsible For Illness 355
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."
Comment removed (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Bad science or bad science reporting? (Score:1, Informative)
Re:Well, not amongst Humans anyway... (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Bad science or bad science reporting? (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:Bad science or bad science reporting? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Well, not amongst Humans anyway... (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Psychological? (Score:2, Informative)
It's not necessarily psychosomatic. When I was young, I was diagnosed with CFS/ME [wikipedia.org]. Apparently, there were a huge crop of cases in the immediate vicinity at around the same time, far above typical levels. I happened to live right by one of the most powerful tv/radio masts in England. Naturally, some of the people who were diagnosed blamed the mast without any scientific knowledge or even a reason, it was just something to blame. It made them feel in control because they liked the idea that they knew something most people didn't, and it let them manifest their frustration caused by the illness as anger.
Now, feel free to tell everybody that their theory is bollocks (I do), but the fact remains that a bunch of people all got sick, and even though it's got nothing to do with the mast, it doesn't mean the illness is all in our heads.
Re:The effect does exist! (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Bad science or bad science reporting? (Score:1, Informative)
Re:Bad science or bad science reporting? (Score:4, Informative)
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....
RF = insanity? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:It cuts both ways (Score:4, Informative)
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 [badscience.net]
Re:Bad science or bad science reporting? (Score:2, Informative)
People were scared that, like x-rays, they were going to be bombarded by radiation.
Re:Bad science or bad science reporting? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Bad science or bad science reporting? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Bad science or bad science reporting? (Score:3, Informative)
Science ftw.
First off the OP misunderstood the article. The "detection" that the test was seeking was people becoming ill, not people saying, "OK, I think it's on now."
Second, when you have a single anecdote, there's no value in that. There are just too many variables.
In a clinical trial, you attempt to limit the variables and compare multiple people's results in order to determine the causal relationship for a given problem. For example, if I lined up 12 people to read Slashdot and they all got sick, while 12 people reading CNN.com didn't, then I'd have a starting point... From there you would seek to establish that outside factors were not involved (for example, are sickly people more attracted to Slashdot... you could find out by comparing the sickness rate between randomly selected people made to read Slashdot vs. regular Slashdot readers).
Re:To the ignorants here: Microwaves are unhealthy (Score:2, Informative)
Did your training by any chance cover the non-thermal effects of microwave radiation on membrane function? If not, please study this topic before asserting theoretical assurances.
Yes. [questia.com]
For more extensive detail from a couple years earlier, check the low power studies discussed here. [salzburg.gv.at]