I agree, the funding of these studies is huge compared with the potential outcome. Same is true for the MTHR study at King's College. But both are short exposure studies, therefore looking for quite acute and fast responses. I have told them that long term studies in people's home environments, measuring the right things in the right locations, might yield more telling results. I agree with them that measuring biological electrical activity in an electrically isolated environment is not easy, but EEGs, body magnetic field changes, NO levels in the breath or changes in the blood etc., all can and should be done.

I asked James Rubin and Simon Wessely at King's what they would do if their study of phones and EHS yielded a positive response. The answer of course is to do it again. And then, what would it show? The answer is that it would show the people who say their phones hurt them are not lying. How many generations of this kind of study to show that phone radiation damages people? And then, what if you sufficiently prove phone radiation presents a rik to health? The answer is to start negotiating with the industry -- the "low tar" argument, while you do the cost-benefit equation with people's lives. How many years, nay, decades, does that represent?

Andy


The Problem with Laboratory EMF Experiments
http://omega.twoday.net/stories/721570/