Betreff: Lack of Science / terrible science / no science

Von: Martin Weatherall

Datum: Sun, 17 Jun 2007 15:45:49 -0400





RR3, Bright,

Ontario, Canada.


17 June 2007


Ben Goldacre

Doctor and writer

Bad Science

The Guardian Newspaper, UK.


Mr. Goldacre


I am not sure what type of doctor you are, but I hope it is not a medical doctor. Your lack of knowledge and concern for terrible health symptoms caused by exposure to electro magnetic fields indicates a serious deficiency in your thinking and compassion. If your are in fact a medical doctor, you should probably face a medical hearing to see if you are fit to continue in that capacity. I have just read your article in the B.M.J., which I assume is the British Medical Journal. I am very surprised that they would allow such ignorant and useless gossip. You appear to have abused the B.M.J. vision statement and their mission statement. I have also read another article where you state - "people who believe their symptoms are related to electromagnetic fields are almost certainly mistaken".


It would seem that you consider yourself knowledgeable enough to make grand public statements in the press about bad science, yet the subject of electro hypersensitivity (EHS), that you have written about, has obviously not been researched properly. Your article has failed to mention the extensive independent scientific research that shows extremely serious health harm being caused by exposure to electro magnetic radiation. This is a failing that makes your article worthless speculation which has no links to the scientific process. Your article is not just bad science it is a lack of science, terrible science and in fact no science. It provides a dangerous false message to most people who read the article and who may fail to protect themselves from a real and very severe environmental danger.


Four years ago I would have been ignorant, just like you, about electro hyper-sensitivity, then I moved to a house that had very high exposure to electro-magnetic radiation (EMR). I did not know what was making me sick but I knew that it was electrical in nature. It took me a great amount of suffering, time, effort and expert help, to discover why and how I was being harmed, but I did eventually discover that it was caused by electro magnetic radiation. For more than three years I have collected scientific research and information about electro magnetic radiation and the harm it causes to health. I have been in touch with scientists involved in EMR research, experts, persons concerned with EMR exposure and many other people who have become electro hypersensitive. The knowledge that I have collected indicates that electro magnetic radiation is one of the most dangerous environmental problems the world has ever faced.


Three years ago, after living in my house for several months, I developed the condition known as being 'electro hypersensitive', I also developed cancer at the same time.  Scientific research has shown greatly increased cancer levels near sources of strong electro magnetic radiation. I was forced to move out of my home and find safe accommodation, away from strong sources of EMR. Luckily, I am not as severely affected as many people, I can still function normally, as long as I avoid medium and strong sources of EMR. 


I am aware of many people whose lives have been severely harmed by EMR and have difficulty functioning because of it. All people are sensitive and affected by electromagnetic radiation. Even if you cannot see it or directly feel it, EMR is affecting everyone and other living things, exposed to it. While there may not be a huge number of people who are electrically hypersensitive, I am finding that a great many people who claim to not suffer the effects of EMR are in fact suffering adverse effects from a variety of sources of electromagnetic radiation found in their homes and their workplaces. I have found that the health of these 'ordinary people' can be improved considerably by simple education and mediation techniques, such as moving electrical wires, cordless telephones and appliances away from people where they spend most time and specially when they sleep. 


If you are going to publicly comment and influence public thinking on such an important subject as this, please conduct extensive research first, so that you do not provide false information to the public. You have done a great disservice to the public. They have a right to know about the dangers of electromagnetic radiation but you have provided them with a false sense of security. I hope that you will conduct realistic research about the health harm of EMR, write about the real dangers and apologize to those who have been hurt and mislead because of your previous articles. I have attached some further information to this message, that may assist you to learn more about the dangers of EMR. I can provide much more scientific research and information upon your request.  

[ ]

[ ]


Yours sincerely


Martin Weatherall.



You are seeing this message because your web browser does not support basic web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.

BMJ  2007;334:1249 (16 June), doi:10.1136/bmj.39245.510718.59


Media watch

Why don't journalists mention the data?

Ben Goldacre, doctor and writer, London

Have stories about "electrosensitivity" simply been lifted from those promoting this new diagnosis?

The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below.

Sometimes, as a doctor who also writes in the newspapers, a dark thought comes across me: wouldn't it be so refreshing—secretly, wouldn't it feel so free—to leave the medical thing behind, and just make stuff up, say what I want, spin any story that pleases me, or any story that sells, and gaily ignore the evidence?

For two years now the British news media has been promoting the existence of a new medical condition, called electrosensitivity, or electromagnetic hypersensitivity. The story—or in medical terms the hypothesis—is that a wide range of symptoms are caused by acute exposure to electromagnetic signals, and that these symptoms are ameliorated by this signal being removed.

The features have a lot in common with what might often conventionally be called "medically unexplained symptoms": tiredness, difficulty concentrating, headaches, nausea, bowel complaints, aches in the limbs, crawling sensations or pain in the skin, and more, for which . . . [Full text of this article]

Related Article

Someone to watch over me

Elizabeth Loder
BMJ 2007 334: 0.
[Extract] [Full Text]

Rapid Responses:

Read all Rapid Responses

Isolated "sell-me" stories

Neville W Goodman, 15 Jun 2007
[Full text]

Clinical Data on EMR Exposures

George L. Carlo, 17 Jun 2007
[Full text]

BMJ Student BMJ

BMJ Group news

Contact us - Privacy policy - Web site terms & conditions - Site map

HighWire Press - Feedback - Help - © 2007 BMJ Publishing Group Ltd.

back to home



5 Studies



Five Studies


Five Studies Showing Ill-Health Effects From Masts
Document produced by Dr Grahame Blackwell 21 Feb 2005


Study of the health of people living in the vicinity of mobile phone base stations.
Santini et al.

Pathol Biol (Paris) [Pathologie Biologie (Paris)] 2002; 50: 369 – 73
Found significant health effects on people living within 300 metres of mobile phone base stations.

Conclusions include the recommendation:
“… it is advisable that mobile phone base stations not be sited closer than 300meters to populations”


Netherlands Organization for Applied Scientific Research (TNO)
Study for the Netherlands Ministries of Economic Affairs, Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment,and Health, Welfare and Sport
“ Effects of Global Communications System Radio-Frequency Fields On Well Being and Cognitive Function of Human Subjects With and Without Subjective Complaints”
(September 2003)

Found significant effects on wellbeing, according to a number of internationally-recognised criteria (including headaches, muscle fatigue/pain, dizziness etc) from 3G mast emissions well below accepted ‘safety’ levels (less than 1/25,000th of ICNIRP guidelines). Those who had previously been noted as ‘electrosensitive’ under a scheme in that country were shown to have more pronounced ill-effects, though others were also shown to experience significant effects.


Oberfeld Gerd1, Navarro A. Enrique3, Portoles Manue12, Maestu Ceferino4,
Gomez Perretta Claudio2

  1. Public Health Department Salzburg, Austria
  2. University Hospital La Fe. Valencia, Spain
  3. Department of Applied Physics, University Valencia, Spain
  4. Foundation European Bioelectromagnetism (FEB) Madrid, Spain
    Presented at an International Conference in Kos (Greece), 2004

This study found significant ill-health effects in those living in the vicinity of two GSM mobile phone base stations. They observed that:
“The strongest five associations found are depressive tendency, fatigue, sleeping disorder, difficulty in concentration and cardiovascular problems.”

As their conclusion the research team wrote:
“Based on the data of this study the advice would be to strive for levels not higher than 0.02 V/m for the sum total, which is equal to a power density of 0.0001 µW/cni2 or 1 µW/m2, which is the indoor exposure value for GSM base stations proposed on empirical evidence by the Public Health Office of the Government of Salzburg in 2002.”


Ronni Wolf MD1, Danny Wolf MD2

  1. The Dermatology Unit, Kaplan Medical Center, Rechovot, and
    the Sackler Faculty of Medicine, Tel-Aviv University, Tel-Aviv, ISRAEL.
  2. The Pediatric Outpatient Clinic, Hasharon Region, Kupat Holim, ISRAEL.

Published in:
International Journal of Cancer Prevention Volume 1, No. 2, April 2004

This study, based on medical records of people living within 350 metres of a long-established phone mast, showed a fourfold increased incidence of cancer generally compared with the general population of Israel, and a tenfold increase specifically among women, compared with the surrounding locality further from the mast.


Naila Study, Germany (November 2004)
Report by researchers (five medical doctors)

Following the call by Wolfram König, President of the Bundesamt für Strahlenschutz (Federal Agency for radiation protection), to all doctors of medicine to collaborate actively in the assessment of the risk posed by cellular radiation, the aim of our study was to examine whether people living close to cellular transmitter antennas were exposed to a heightened risk of taking ill with malignant tumors.

The basis of the data used for the survey were PC fi1es of the case histories of patients between the years 1994 and 2004. While adhering to data protection, the personal data of almost 1.000 patients were evaluated for this study, which was completed without any external financial support. It is intended to continue the project in the form of a register.
The result of the study shows that the proportion of newly developing cancer cases was significantly higher among those patients who had lived during the past ten years at a distance of up to 400 metres from the cellular transmitter site, which bas been in operation since 1993, compared to those patients living further away, and that the patients fell ill on average 8 years earlier.

In the years 1999-2004, i.e. after five years’ operation of the transmitting installation, the relative risk of getting cancer had trebled for the residents of the area in the proximity of the installation compared to the inhabitants of Naila outside the area.

NOTE: These are the only studies known of that specifically consider the effects of masts on people. All five of these studies show clear and significant ill-health effects. There are no known studies relating to health effects of masts that do not show such ill-health effects.
In this respect, any statement by industry or official sources that claims (or suggests) that:
(a) There is no evidence of ill-health effects from masts;
(b) The overwhelming evidence is that masts do not cause ill-health effects;
is completely and blatantly untrue.

Dr Grahame Blackwell



Instant Links

Latest Research (5 studies)

The Curry Bill


William Stewart Report

Planning Sanity

Mast Sanity

Join Us


Privacy Policy

Add to Favourites



Institute of Science in Society; Science, Society, Sustainability

Search the ISIS website




ISIS members area log in





Views and goods advertized are not necessarily endorsed by Science in Society or the Inst. of Science in Society.


ISIS miniseries "Fields of Influence"

Electromagnetic radiations are increasingly flooding our environment, as evidence of health risks is mounting, suggesting that organisms are sensitive to very weak electromagnetic fields.

This requires a new biology that understands organisms that has been systematically ignored and excluded from mainstream discourse, to our peril. This miniseries is in four parts:

  1. Electromagnetic Fields Double Leukemia Risks
  2. Mobile Phones & Cancer
  3. Non-Thermal Effects
  4. The Excluded Biology

Also see our next fields of influence series

Non-Thermal Effects

Electromagnetic fields too weak to heat up the body had been linked to cancer and other illnesses since the 1960s. The current ‘safety’ limits are still inadequate to protect workers and the public from these effects. Dr. Mae-Wan Ho exposes the bad science at the centre of the controversy.

The complete document with references, is available in the ISIS members site. Full details here

The current debate over the health hazards of mobile phones is a continuation of the debate over the health hazards of weak electromagnetic fields in the entire frequency spectrum that began in the 1950s.

The first experiment on the biological effects of electromagnetic fields dates from the end of the nineteenth century when Russian scientist Danilevsky observed effects of radio-frequency fields on a muscle preparation that included the nerve supplying the muscle. Investigations peaked simultaneously with the development of radar between 1930 and 1940, but ended abruptly with World War II.

Interest in the subject was rekindled by the discovery that animals and plants failed to thrive and even died in areas exposed to radio waves beyond a certain minimum power density; and also by complaints of workers at radar stations. Research resumed in the 1950s in the former Soviet Union and the United States, as well as in Poland, Italy, and later, Britain.

Public debate over the health hazards of electromagnetic fields began in the United States. In 1973, biologist Robert Becker was approached by the US Navy Commander Paul Tyler to serve on a panel of experts to evaluate some experiments that the Navy had funded. These were in connection with an antenna system the Navy was planning to build in northern Wisconsin that involved grids of buried wires that would extend over thousands of square miles of land. It was to be used for communication with submerged submarines.

Because of the large size of the antenna system, and fears that the non-ionising electromagnetic radiation (NIEMR) it would emit might have impacts on health and the environment, Congress had ordered the Navy to carry out the studies.

The New York Academy of Sciences had sponsored a conference on "Electrically Mediated Growth Mechanisms in Living Systems", and Becker had delivered a brilliant keynote paper that summarised his work up to then, which revealed how electrical fields and currents produced by the body are controlling growth and regeneration. By the 1960s, Becker had already proposed a theory that an electrical communication system exists within all living things, and also showed that externally applied fields could influence the processes of growth and regeneration.

But Becker was also worried about the undesirable, harmful effects that could come from exposures to external electromagnetic fields that were often orders of magnitude stronger than the fields within the living body. He had taken on a graduate student, Andrew Marino to conduct some studies on mice and rats.

Marino had indeed found that animals exposed to NIEMR suffered adverse effects, when Becker was asked to review the studies that the Navy had funded.

There were seven scientists on the panel reviewing more than 30 studies. Nearly two-thirds of the studies had found biological effects from exposure to NIEMR; and these were in a variety of species, including slime-mould, rats, birds and humans. The upshot was that all the panel members thought the proposed antenna was a potential hazard to human health, and they drew up a long list of recommendations and further studies.

In the middle of deliberations, someone pointed out that the Navy’s proposed antenna produced NIEMR similar to that produced by high-voltage powerlines, and that in the largest lines carrying 765 000 volts, the strength of the NIEMR might be as much as a million times stronger. That threw the panel into disarray. The discussions became heated, but eventually, the scientists agreed they had to recommend some action: that the Navy should inform a special committee advisory to the President that many Americans might be "at risk" from NIEMR from power lines.

Marino, who told his story in a book published years later had no idea that he and his supervisor were about to be drawn into one of the most acrimonious and lonely battle against the industrial-military complex, and prominent figures in the scientific establishment were to play the key role in victimising him and his supervisor. When it was all over, Becker would lose all grant support, and would have to close his laboratory in Syracuse, New York, after 20 years of pioneering research on the electromagnetic basis of living organisms.

Marino had found that animals exposed to NIEMR of 60Hz from the wall outlet gained less weight and drank less water. The exposed animals also had altered levels of blood proteins and enzymes. That was precisely the same NIEMR that would come from power lines. He had repeated the experiment twice, with the same results.

By then, at least two 765 000 volt lines were being planned, and Marino and Becker were called to give evidence at a powerline hearing which arose from Becker’s warnings. Their experiments had confirmed what the Navy’s own studies had found. Becker had no doubt that the power line was a potential health risk.

Unfortunately, they were up against Herman Schwan and other scientists who would be defending the industry and their own prestige in the scientific establishment.

Schwan had come to United States from Germany in 1947 under Project Paperclip, a controversial government programme to import German scientists after WWII. He worked for the US Navy until 1950 when he became a professor at the University of Pennsylvania. Schwan had done some research on NIEMR in Germany during the war. After arriving in the US, he began to publish papers saying that ‘the laws of physics’ showed that the only effects of NIEMR on living things would be through heating or electric shock.

Schwan’s writings were bound up with the federal government’s concern, which surfaced in the 1950s, over military employees who were reporting various injuries from working around radar – eye injuries, temporary and permanent sterility, internal bleeding and other problems. In response to these complaints, an Air Force surgeon, Colonel George Knauf was asked to determine how much NIEMR was safe. Knauf and Schwan began to work together, with Schwan being the expert on biological effects.

Schwan regarded the stories of non-thermal injuries anecdotal and unreliable. Accordingly, he regarded NIEMR safe if it did not cause heating. What was the maximum level? Schwan ‘s answer was that the body could handle a certain amount of heat, for example, by sweating, but if the heat reached the point at which the body’s regulatory mechanisms broke down, temperature would rise and injury would result. According to his calculations, the ‘safe’ level would be 10 milliwatts per square centimetre (mW/cm2).

This level was adopted provisionally by the Department of Defence in 1955, and Knauf got the go-ahead to fund a series of animal experiments to verify Schwan’s calculations.

One of the researchers funded was Solomon Michaelson at the University of Rochester, who used beagle dogs as a test animal, and, "in a revolting series of experiments, he literally cooked dogs alive with NIEMR at levels of 50 to 100mW/cm2". He recorded burns, fluid oozing from the brain and eyes and body temperatures rising to 106-108F.

Other investigators confirmed Michaelson’s work. Gross acute effects had been observed at NIEMR levels only slightly above the safety limit set by Schwan. There was not one instance of an experiment funded by the programme that was conducted at power densities below the limit. In other words, non-thermal effects were never investigated.

Schwan was subsequently appointed chair of a committee of the American National Standards Institute (ANSI), whose goal was to set a NIEMR limit or industry. It came as no surprise that ANSI accepted Schwan’s position and 10mW/cm2 became the "safe" level for such industries as radar and radio and others whose employees would be exposed to electrical equipment.

Over the next twenty years, Schwan published dozens of papers and gave hundreds of lectures, which culminated in his election to the National Academy of Engineering.

What Schwan said in most of his papers was that there were no known biological effects of NIEMR below 10mW/cm2. There were in fact such reports, particularly from the former Soviet Union, that were never acknowledged by Schwan. Schwan’s limit came solely from calculations based on non-biological models, or dead tissues; and all subsequent experiments were simply rationalisations of it, as Marino pointed out.

Michaelson, too, declared that so long as NIEMR levels were below Schwan’s limit, they were completely safe. He was especially critical of Soviet scientists who found non-thermal effects below that threshold, and had set safety limits far more stringent that that in the US. He said that the harm done to industry and the military from such stringent limits would outweigh any proposed public-health benefit.

In 1965, the safe exposure limit set for the general public in Czechoslovakia was in the range of microwatts/cm2, ie, a thousand times smaller than that in the United States.

Michaelson’s public declarations brought him many important appointments to committees of the National Academy of Sciences, the World Health Organization, the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, President’s Office of Telecommunication Policy, Electric Power Research Institute, etc.

Both Schwan and Michaelson were to be major witnesses on behalf of industry against Marino and Becker.

It turns out that in the mid-1960s, the power industry in the US had already obtained copies of Soviet studies on the biological effects of NIEMR from powerlines. The American Electric Power Company (AEP), one of the largest in the US, commissioned a study by scientists in Johns Hopkins University, the results of which were released in 1967. In a survey involving 11 linemen, two were found with reduced sperm count. In a second study, mice exposed to NIEMR were not harmed, but their offspring, which were not exposed, were stunted. No more follow-up studies were carried out, and request by the John Hopkins team for further funding was turned down.

At an international conference on high-voltage powerlines in Paris in 1972, Soviet engineers announced for the first time to the West that they had performed investigations on the effects of NIEMR on workers and concluded they needed protective clothing. They reported reduced sexual potency and adverse effects on the central nervous system, the heart and circulatory system.

The power industry released translations of the Soviet reports, which were prefaced by Howard Barnes, an engineer for AEP involved in the John Hopkins studies. The Soviet scientists had studied hundreds of linemen, compared to the 11 in the American study. And while the American study involved only physical examinations, the Soviets had performed psychological and neurological tests as well.

But Barnes, in his introduction, invoked an argument that’s all too familiar in the current GM debate. He pointed out that there were then 500 000 miles of high-voltage lines in the US, and there wasn’t a single report, not one confirmed case, of anyone being killed or made ill by the NIEMR from such lines, so they must be safe.

As in the case of GM food, that statement was based on there having been no studies on the effects of living near the power lines.

The story that unfolded makes riveting reading. Research findings were suppressed and falsified. Important scientific witnesses failed to turn up or were not contactable. Committees were stacked with industry-friendly scientists.

Marino, Becker and citizens won in the end, at tremendous personal costs to themselves. They prevented one of the two big power lines from being built, and the company that built the first announced it would not build another 765 000 volt line.

Most revealing in the entire episode was the way Schwan defended the indefensible orthodoxy. He denied all scientific evidence that went against his a priori calculation based on the ‘known laws of physics’ and the utterly false assumption that the living organism was to be regarded as no different from dead or inanimate matter.

As Marino wrote, "..Schwan seemed to view the studies [reporting non-thermal NIEMR effects] as weeds in the garden of known physical laws. Because the know laws did not predict the results of the studies, Schwan’s reaction was to denigrate them, rather than assume that there existed unknown laws, or unknown interpretation of known laws.."

Schwan was not alone, the scientific establishment had thrown its weight behind his position until it became untenable. But there has been little change in scientific outlook since.

To this day, the ‘safe’ exposure limits recommended by the international authority, International Committee for Non-Ionising Radiation (ICNIRP) take no account of non-thermal effects, despite the mounting evidence of health hazards from such effects.

By the 1980s, Marino could already point to the studies reporting NIEMR links to depression and suicides in England, to cancers in both children and adults in Colorado in the United States. Housewives in Oregon who lived in houses with radiant electric heating were subject to increased cancer risk. In Sweden, a correlation was reported between cancer in juveniles and proximity to high-voltage power lines in the Stockholm area. A cluster of rare and lethal ovarian tumours was found in five young girls living near a 69 000 volt line in Florida.

Similar association between NIEMR and cancer was reported in Wichita, Kansas. Men and women living in counties containing cities near Air Force bases were more likely to get cancer than people in similar counties not located near Air Force bases.

Finally, a correlation between electric blankets and miscarriages was also reported.

Successive reports since then, including the latest from the UK National Radiological Protection Board that accepts the links to childhood leukaemia, stops short of drawing any firm conclusions because of the absence of "any proven biological mechanisms".

The complete document with references, is available in the ISIS members site. Full details here



printer friendly version







Recent Publications

Which Energy
Which Energy? ISIS energy report 2006.
Buy Now.

Unravelling AIDS
Unravelling AIDS. The independent science and promising alternative therapies.
Buy Now.

GMO Free: Exposing the Hazards of Biotechnology to Ensure the Integrity of our Food SupplyGMO Free: Exposing the Hazards of Biotechnology to Ensure the Integrity of our Food Supply
Buy Now.

Science in Society magazineThe only radical science magazine on earth
Science in Society 34
OUT NOW! Order your copy from our online store.




Join the I-SIS mailing list; enter your email address html asci



I-SIS is a not-for-profit organisation, depending on donations, membership fees, subscriptions, and merchandise sales to continue its work. Find out more about membership here



The Institute of Science in Society, PO Box 51885, London NW2 9DH
telephone:   [44 20 8452 2729]   [44 20 7272 5636]

Contact the Institute of Science in Society