UPDATE 1-WHO study has no clear answer on phones and cancer [Archive]

View Full Version : UPDATE 1-WHO study has no clear answer on phones and cancer

ghoti

17-05-2010, 08:14 AM

* No apparent cancer risk, but concern about heaviest users

TECHNOLOGY | TELECOMMUNCATIONS SERVICES

* Study's findings unclear, methodology has weaknesses

* Experts say phone use now much higher so more work needed

(Adds reaction from representatives of mobile phone industry)

By Kate Kelland, Health and Science Correspondent

LONDON, May 16 (Reuters) - Experts who studied almost 13,000 cell phone users over 10 years, hoping to find out whether the mobile devices cause brain tumours, said on Sunday their research gave no clear answer.

A study by the World Health Organisation's International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), the largest ever to look at possible links between mobile phones and brain cancer, threw up inconclusive results but researchers said suggestions of a possible link demanded deeper examination.

"The results really don't allow us to conclude that there is any risk associated with mobile phone use, but... it is also premature to say that there is no risk associated with it," the IARC's director Christopher Wild told Reuters.

The results of the study have been keenly awaited by mobile phone companies and by campaign groups who have raised concerns about whether mobile phones cause brain tumours.

Years of research have failed to establish a connection.

The British-based GSM Association, which represents international cell phone firms, said IARC's findings echoed "the large body of existing research and many expert reviews that consistently conclude that there is no established health risk".

The Australian-based Mobile Manufacturers Forum also welcomed the study and backed "the need for ongoing research".

Wild said part of the problem with this study, which was launched in 2000, was that rates of mobile phone usage in the period it covered were relatively low compared with today.

It was also based on people searching their memories to estimate how much time they spent on their cell phones, a method that can throw up inaccuracies.

European scientists last month launched what will now become the biggest ever study into the effects of mobile phone use on long-term health. It aims to track at least a quarter of a million of people in five European countries for up to 30 years.

This kind of study, called a prospective study, is considered more accurate because it does not require people to remember their cell phone use later but tracks it in real time.

SUGGESTION OF A RISK?

Data from the IARC study showed that overall, mobile telephone users in fact had a lower risk of brain cancer than people who had never used one, but the 21 scientists who conducted the study said this finding suggested problems with the method, or inaccurate information from those who took part.

Other results showed high cumulative call time may slightly raise the risk, but again the finding was not reliable.

"We can't just conclude that there is no effect," said Elisabeth Cardis of the Centre for Research in Environmental Epidemiology in Barcelona, Spain, who led the study.

"There are indications of a possible increase. We're not sure that it is correct. It could be due to bias, but the indications are sufficiently strong... to be concerned."

Because of this, and because cell phone use is rising all the time, more research was needed, the scientists said.

The 21 scientists were part of a group known as the Interphone International Study Group which was funded in part by money from mobile phone companies. The study was published in the International Journal of Epidemiology.

Mobile phone use has increased dramatically since its introduction in the early-to-mid 1980s. About 5 billion mobile phones are currently in use worldwide.

The researchers said the majority of people covered in their study "were not heavy mobile phone users by today's standards". The average lifetime cumulative call time for those who took part was around 100 hours, with an average of 2 to 2-1/2 hours of reported use a month. The heaviest 10 percent of users had clocked up an average of 1,640 hours of phone use spread over 10 years, which corresponds to about half an hour a day.

"Today, mobile phone use has become much more prevalent and it is not unusual for young people to use mobile phones for an hour or more a day," the researchers wrote.

But increasing use is tempered by generally lower radiation emissions from modern phones and greater use of texting and hands-free sets that keep the phone away from the head, they said.

The study received 19.2 million euros ($24.4 million) in funding, around 5.5 million euros of which came from industry sources. It analysed data from interviews with 2,708 people with a type of brain cancer called glioma and 2,409 with another type called meningioma, plus around 7,500 people with no cancer.

Participants were from Australia, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Israel, Italy, Japan, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden and Britain. ($1=.7872 Euro) (Editing by Mark Trevelyan and Reed Stevenson)
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSLDE64F0J420100516
So in a nutshell. Cellphone radiation is not causing the large epidemic of brain cancer and if has effects they are relatively small. This is not a great comfort but at least we have more information.

davemc

17-05-2010, 08:21 AM

ghoti

17-05-2010, 08:27 AM

PeterCH

17-05-2010, 09:45 AM

Klos

17-05-2010, 10:02 AM

To test this:

1. Place a known number of living cells near transmitting device.
2. Monitor effect of transmitting device on living cells.
3. Collate results with known brain cell-growth facts.
4. Publish results.

$30m spent on talking to people?
Bwaaahahahahahahaha

Actually, this type of 'research' counts for a large number of the studies published so far. Put a number of cells in a petri dish, nuke them and see if any affects are observed. Often there are.

But what the conspiracy theorists 'forget' to mention when they quote these studies, as conclusive proof, is that the levels and durations used in these tests do not resemble anything seen in the field. Basically their methodology tends to be: If you don't get results with normal cell and tower levels, jack up the volume and duration till you do get results. Then publish your 'Eureka paper'.

Look somewhere else on this forum where I quote a study on sperm cells done here in South Africa. Only when they blasted the poor buggers with cell signals EIGHT times higher than normal, for 24-hours NON-STOP. did they see some effect on them (basically swimming erratically). There are many of these studies (which only proves what we've always known; Electromagnetic radiation at high levels are dangerous - just ask the chicken in your microwave oven)

But there are even sillier studies used as 'proof'.

One such 'methodology' involves 'researchers' knocking on doors of people who live nearby a tower. They are then basically asked "Do you suffer from any of the following symptoms." At which point they list every medical symptom known to man. And if the resident responds positively to any of these symptoms, it's marked down as proof that the nearby tower is the cause.

The logical and scientific minds on this forum might well not believe that these type of studies are done, but that's exactly what happens. And then the likes of Muller and Trower states "Every study done to date show that base stations cause cancer'. And then, as conclusive proof, they state that these studies are published on the WHO's web-site to make them sound legit.

All studies published end up in the WHO's database, BTW. This does not mean the WHO endorses any of them. They will publish the study and often will give a short overview on the methodology. They are particularly critical on these type of 'You're ill, must be the tower' type of studies. I.e. those without any proper research behind them.

Karl Muller

17-05-2010, 12:56 PM

Klos has been told to apologise to Mr Barrie Trower on another thread for his demonstrably ignorant, offensive and defamatory comments. That at least shut him up on that thread, but here he goes again, atrocious grammar and all.

If anyone is interested in the scientific research on cellphone masts, they can take a look at my submission to the World Health Organisation, which lists every single mast study I could find in the world to that date. You can check them out for yourself.
http://www.powerwatch.org.uk/news/20091119_south_africa_sos.pdf

Another Israeli study by Michael Peleg has appeared since then, showing a highly significant (eightfold) increase in cancers near masts -- this has been peer-reviewed to the extent that it was presented at an IEEE conference. Peleg concludes:

"A cancer cluster in an antenna ranges facility was reported. The p-value and the odds ratio are statistically significant and, together with similar cases reported elsewhere, support the hypotheses of carcinogenic influence of non-ionizing radiation and, more specifically, that of an extreme cancer risk when the exposure is prolonged, repetitive and limited only by the thermal ICNIRP limits. The 16% cancer incidence among a group of young people over a period of about a decade reported here serves as an example of the magnitude of this possible risk. This study may contribute to more definite conclusions when examined together with similar data reported elsewhere, till then human radiation exposure should be reduced deeply below the ICNIRP thermal limits."
http://groups.google.com/group/mobilfunk_newsletter/browse_thread/thread/89270c5a16b7c389?pli=1

Again -- anyone on this site who finds a peer-reviewed scientific study around a mast that does NOT show problems, like increased cancer rates, let us know.

Let me tell you something very funny. If researchers are looking for signs of bird flu in an area, they go knocking on doors and ask about flu-like symptoms -- did you know that? Really stupid way of doing research, according to Klos.

Klos: you have proved your ignorance and your bias to any decent, objective reader. Your defamatory comments will not be forgotten, and I still reserve all my rights in this regard. You do not have the guts to stand up and identify yourself, so just note that you prove yourself to be a coward. If there's one trait I truly despise, it is this kind of cowardice.

Klos

17-05-2010, 01:12 PM

Let me tell you something very funny. If researchers are looking for signs of bird flu in an area, they go knocking on doors and ask about flu-like symptoms -- did you know that? Really stupid way of doing research, according to Klos.

You're right, it is funny. Or at least it would've been if you did not truly believe that this is how one does research.

The only really stupid thing here is your belief that this 'methodology' (read: joke) constitutes research of any kind.

Go and read the very links you've posted as proof and you'll see the analysis at the bottom of the same page ripping the results to pieces. (exactly because the knock-on-door method is fatally flawed.)

Klos

17-05-2010, 01:23 PM

I'll take Karl's first link (of 8 that "proves" cancer around towers) as a good example of what I posted above:

From the details of the study by Santini (this is directly from Karl's own link above, showing how selectivly he loves to read):

="http://apps.who.int/peh-emf/research/database/emfstudies/viewstudy.cfm?ID=772"
Base Station (900 MHz GSM) residential proximity / exposure and assessment of fatigue, headache, sleep disorders, concentration difficulty, loss of memory, etc

Details Human volunteers (n = 530) living various distances from mobile phone base stations were surveyed by questionnaire regarding various subjective disorders. The subjects were also asked to estimate their residential proximity to the nearest mobile phone tower. The authors reported significant associations between residential proximity within 300 m of a base station and tiredness. They also report associations between residence within 200 m and the incidence of headache, sleep disruption, and discomfort, and 100 m with the incidence of irritability, depression, loss of memory, dizziness, and libido decrease. In addition, women were affected more often than men with regard to headache, nausea, loss of appetite, sleep disruption, depression, sidcomfort, and visual disruptions.

Basically, the respondents were asked for their own views on what caused their symptoms. And by asking the proximity of any towers (how would they know, in any case?), the respondents were automatically biased.

Now read the final comments on the bottom of the page (this is the bit Karl won't mention):

Studies by Van Leeuwen (333), Wainwright (539), Wang (723), and Bernardi (763)have convincingly demonstrated that MW hyperthermia in the brain as speculated by Santini cannot occur from the use of a standard cell phone. Regarding the base station studies, the original study questionnaire did not appear to indicate any effort to control for recall bias, and subjects were asked to estimate their own residential proximity to the nearest mobile phone tower (obviously not very dependable). In the 2003 study, field probe measurements were taken at selected areas, but even this is subject to wide variations. There was also no indication of response rate, indicating that the study population may not have been appropriately selected, but may have all volunteered, further biasing the study.

I understand Karl's viewpoints and (lack of) research depends heavily on subjective feedback, lack of any controls for the study and especially recall bias, but in the greater scientific community these kind of studies are very much frowned upon.

Now ask yourself; Does Karl not bother to read the very links he loves to post here, or is it a case of "selective" posting?

Clearly it's the latter. Karl have posted link after link on this forum and, without fail, his very own links discredit his statements.

So why does he do this?

He very well knows few (if any) will actually follow his links and read for themselves. So he can post cr@p and the greater community will swallow it hook, line and sinker.

Klos

17-05-2010, 01:40 PM

Klos has been told to apologise to Mr Barrie Trower on another thread for his demonstrably ignorant, offensive and defamatory comments. That at least shut him up on that thread, but here he goes again, atrocious grammar and all.

After you posted that Trower does not use a PC at all, I gave up on that thread as you basically put the final nail in his coffin of credibility.

Here we have a guy that involved himself in "microwave espionage" a few decades ago. And then you tell us he does not use modern technology such as computers, and by extension, the Internet. So he has no ability to read the thousands of studies, opinions and research on the various topics in the field of EMF.

But, actually, it's no surprise, as we saw his lack of education with his grasp on how RF and it's shielding works.

So he's got an excuse why he comes across as an uneducated nutter.

As an 'ex-teacher', what's yours?

Dyl106

17-05-2010, 01:43 PM

A study today will be contridicted by another study 5 years from now.

Klos

17-05-2010, 03:04 PM

Let's take the second of Karl's famous 8 studies that show base stations cause cancer.

Remember these are the very same 'studies' he is using to claim conclusive proof.

Here's the link on the WHO's database, as supplied by Muller himself: http://apps.who.int/peh-emf/research/database/emfstudies/viewstudy.cfm?ID=1122

900 & 1800 MHz (GSM) phone use and assessment of hypersensitivity and general "well being" among users

Details: A health survey carried out in Murcia, Spain, in the vicinity of an 1800 MHz (GSM) base station. Respondents were asked by questionnaire to assess "well-being" and health issues related to "microwave sickness" or "RF syndrome". Power density was measured in respondents homes. The authors report a significant correlation between severity of reported symptoms and measured power density. The separation of respondents into two different exposure groups showed an increase in reported symptoms in the group with higher exposure.

Again, residents were asked to self-diagnose "microwave sickness" and "RF syndrome" in relation to a nearby GSM tower.

It comes as no surprise that the EMF Project call this a "poor study design" and concludes (on the very same page Muller quotes):

No defined exposure assessment, simply field probe measurements in each respondents bedroom taken during the middle of the day (11am - 7pm - when that is probably the only time the respondents would not be in their bedroom). Most importantly, no blinded questionnaire - the study was subject to bias, the authors even prompted responses by asking about "microwave sickness" and "RF syndrome".

Let me again highlight the last sentence in the Comments section:

the authors even prompted responses by asking about "microwave sickness" and "RF syndrome".

See a pattern with these 'studies' you keep on trying to palm of as definitive proof, dearest Karl?

Do you now understand why the WHO (and the rest of the scientific world) ignores you?

Klos

17-05-2010, 03:31 PM

I'll do one more of Karl's 'famous 8 studies' and then rather leave it to the reader to read the other five, if he or she so wishes. But by now that pattern will be patently clear: flawed studies are selectively quoted to provide a false outcome:

Karl's linky: http://apps.who.int/peh-emf/research/database/emfstudies/viewstudy.cfm?ID=970

850 MHz (TDMA) mobile phone base station and cancer associated with residential proximity

People (n=622) living in proximity to a mobile phone cell site in Netanya, Isreal (began operation in July 1996) and attending a cancer clinic were compared with control populations registering in a neighboring clinic in Netanya as well as the entire population cancer rate in Netanya. Eight cases in the experimental area were diagnosed during the study period between July 1997-June 1998 - all different types of cancer (ovarian, breast lung, hodgkins, Osteoid osteoma, and hypernephroma). The authors report a statistically significant association between residential proximity to the mobile phone base station site and cancer incidence. Start date June 1997, end date June 1999.

Sounds quite impressive. Now read the comments (which Karl failed to mention):

There were only 8 cancer cancer cases included this cell tower under study. Even more concerning, these were all different kinds of cancer (ovarian, breast lung, hodgkins, Osteoid osteoma, and hypernephroma) - not even 8 cases of the same thing. The control population was not adequately matched, despite the authors claim that it somehow is. The controls are all derived from a different clinic made up of people (presumably) living in a different area and subject to multiple different confounding factors. How can the author even be sure the control population did not live near other cell sites ? THis is not mentioned. Any cell network would be presumed to have sites situated throughout all the areas under study. The study presumes a latency period of less than 2 years for all the cancers (the cell site just started operating 1 year before the study). The exposure was miniscule at the level of the homes - one would have to conclude, if the study were valid, that cancer cases would be popping up all over the place around cell sites. I would be very suspicious if many other sites within the control population or the city of Netanya did not also have power densities comparable to what was found in the cancer subject's homes. Most importantly, there is NO dosimetry, just a single "measure -?" of power density at each home. Where was this measured ? On the roof ? Did the women work or stay home all day ? Were the control site homes measured ? In addition, the ERP from cell sites can changes over time in directionality, power, and cycle of transmission, especially during low-traffic periods in the late evening and early morning hours - this was not characterized in the cancer cases. In addition to changes in ERP, the effects of terrain and the reflecting / shielding contributions of natural and man-made structures and atmospheric conditions can cause significant variations in the RF energy that reaches various points within the homes and over the entire coverage area. Such variation was not described at all.

Short summary: Study was so flawed an eight-year old would be embarrassed to publish these results.

Klos

17-05-2010, 04:08 PM

Another Israeli study by Michael Peleg has appeared since then, showing a highly significant (eightfold) increase in cancers near masts -- this has been peer-reviewed to the extent that it was presented at an IEEE conference. Peleg concludes:

Ai tog, Karl......don't you EVER read the links you post??

This 'study' has got nothing to do with mobile cell masts of any kind, even if you try and create the impression. Go read again what type of facility it is and what they do there.

The author can't even (by his own admission) figure out the size of the control group. Could be 30, could be 60, they don't know and could not interview the controls. So how could they possibly do a probability calculation if they don't know or have access to the control group.

And then, by his own admission:

Since this is a single cluster no definitive conclusions can be drawn from it by itself.

Karl, you really need to learn to be honest in your posts.

omegaselect

17-05-2010, 05:05 PM

I have a copy of a newsletter somewhere that was sent out in Fourways which is a good example of recall bias. If I can find it, I will post it here.

omegaselect

17-05-2010, 06:07 PM

Typed up the relevant section from our Talavera Estate newsletter. We're about 2ks away from the tower.

Health Alert iBurst Tower

The tower is placed in Memorial Lane next to the Memorial Park. Residents over Craigavon have been reporting bad health issues since the operation of the tower. Please urgently notify the Craigavon Task Force on intrack@iafrica.com and copy in bwebster@mweb.co.za (nurse recording health effects – Barbara) if you are experiencing any of the following symptoms; itchy, burning, dry skin, rashes or hot spots, nausea or wretching, dizziness, severe headaches, swollen / sore lymph gland, lack of concentration, change in sleep patterns, high blood pressure, hoarseness, heart palpitations, gastric disturbances, eye problems / sensitive of organs. The symptoms are already being experienced by children and adults in different complexes. Children tend to be more susceptible so please monitor closely.

When we got this late last year, imagine my relieve to hear all my medical problems were caused by the iburst tower and not due to my lazy, fast-food chomping @ss. :)

Klos

17-05-2010, 06:46 PM

Health Alert iBurst Tower

The tower is placed in Memorial Lane next to the Memorial Park. Residents over Craigavon have been reporting bad health issues since the operation of the tower. Please urgently notify the Craigavon Task Force on intrack@iafrica.com and copy in bwebster@mweb.co.za (nurse recording health effects – Barbara) if you are experiencing any of the following symptoms; itchy, burning, dry skin, rashes or hot spots, nausea or wretching, dizziness, severe headaches, swollen / sore lymph gland, lack of concentration, change in sleep patterns, high blood pressure, hoarseness, heart palpitations, gastric disturbances, eye problems / sensitive of organs. The symptoms are already being experienced by children and adults in different complexes. Children tend to be more susceptible so please monitor closely.

You're 100% correct. This is a classic example on how to sow disinformation and then claim you have proof by biasing the reader.

From the section you posted, you can see how these things are constructed to convey an air of credibility:

1) First, you start with a fancy name. In this case it's the Craigavon Task Force. That sounds authoritive, so they must be legit.

(Some other examples include the Electromagnetic Action Group SA, another fancy name with guess who as its one and only member? ;) and, recently, the Electromagnetic Radiation Research Foundation which is run by Dorny, who morphed from a crystal therapist and event organiser to fully-fledged EMF scientist (with the help of Muller and Trower, of course). )

Once you've got the cool name you need to...

2) State a self-made-up correlation. In this case the CTF (no, not the Cape Town Fish Market, but the Craigavon Task Force) states that residents are already reporting symptoms due to the tower. Note: no need to offer proof, it's enough to just report correlation.

3) Then you list as many possible symptoms you can think of. In this case around 20. Make sure you list enough so any living human can tick at least a few boxes. The more vague, the better. "Sensitive of organs" (above) is a good one. Means nothing, can't be quantified, but sounds scary. And who of us do NOT suffer from 'sensitive organs'? ;) Just poke yourself in the liver or heart and see how 'sensitive' it is......

You've now made the connection for the reader between any number of symptoms and the tower. Again, no proof needed.

And then the coup de grace.....

4) You bring children into the argument. Again, don't bother with proof. Just scare the cr@p out of any parent or any other reader and play on the natural protectivity we feel towards our children.

So there you go; without providing proof for anything, you've established a clear connection between people's perceived health issues and whatever YOU decided must be the cause (in this case a mobile data tower).

And the Muller's and Trower's of the world can now quote this as another case of definitive proof, just like Karl's 8 cases above, he used to claim conclusive proof of correlation between towers and cancer.

In summary, dearest Karl, that's what we mean by "biasing" results, telling people what the answer should be, before actually asking it.

Just like the *researchers* did in the studies you quoted above. Which is why everyone (except the crackpots) give them little value.

Klos

19-05-2010, 09:09 AM

As expected, the usual pathetic retorts by the Muller fan-boyz, are popping up everywhere on the web.

Every time Muller posts one of his disingenuous links and I point it out, I'm accused of:

- Being an industry insider,
- the CEO of a telecoms company,
- a bad speller

But strangely, never a word on the fact that by showing the complete story behind a link (and not just a selective quote), it clearly changes the message Muller wanted to convey and therefore exposes his intent to mislead.

marine1

19-05-2010, 09:13 AM

Jannie please try act like an adult for a change

mister

19-05-2010, 10:06 AM

http://www.magdahavas.com/

ghoti

19-05-2010, 10:30 AM

/me uses the rbp function to get rid of the troll in this thread.

ghoti

19-05-2010, 10:32 AM

Klos

19-05-2010, 12:38 PM

Thanks klos, your information and articulation is most damning against the pseudo-scientists .

I dont like pseudoscience by crystal people, and you put a lot into perspective. Perhaps someone should buy Karl a computer (make sure its not wireless), so he can read the large amount of scientific research he seems to have missed. Right now (to me), klos is coming across as educated and informed... Karl Muller is coming across as a wifi-"creationist" (when I use the term creationist it implies someone who cherry picks their information and completely disregards all information that contradicts his weak hypothesis.).

My personal stance is to look at the information in the greater scientific community. Right now its definitely leaning towards what klos has to say).

w1z, the funny thing is I've never said that there is no potential problem with mobile phones and other RF systems. As a matter of fact, I've often posted on how and why these systems can be dangerous. And they can be, in specific environments. Today the body of evidence points to these systems being safe, but that does not mean we should not carry on studying it.

Rather, my gripe with the likes of Muller (and now Trower) has always been that they patently publish biased information and especially their tendency to selectively quote research and then claim it as conclusive proof.

Muller has been caught out time and time again quoting from studies that actually state different conclusions to the ones he tries to convey. I find this highly offensive as he seems to think he is talking to idiots who will not bother to actually read the research papers he quotes.

While some, like marine1, openly admits they do not bother with facts or to read for themselves, I do believe that the majority of the people on this forum do actually believe in the scientific method. And I will not stop pointing out Muller’s blatant attempts at spreading misinformation. Clearly, if I (in turn) misinterpret a study, by all means let's debate the point. But so far, I've not had a single response to every “Muller link” I quoted and corrected.

Then, what really gets my back up is when someone clearly does not understand the science and post just plain silly arguments. Like the 'shiny-side-out' story Trower came up with (or Muller's own 'tinfoil-pinhole' story) and then likes of Muller try to defend it.

And this is the level of defence presented:

Barrie is proud of the fact that he uses nothing more technically advanced than a fountain pen and a bottle of ink, he does not own a computer...

Just to post such an admission, and not to realise how damning it is in this time and age, shows how far removed these guys are from following the scientific method.

And that's my angle in this whole debate. By all means debate the issues, we don’t have conclusive proof for anything yet.

But understand the science and do not try and bias your reader by (pretty much) lying about the topic.

You will get caught out. And end up looking like an idiot.

Klos

19-05-2010, 02:39 PM

http://www.magdahavas.com/

Been reading her site for a while.

As someone who firmly believes our modern diet is not optimal, I was especially intrigued by Magda's discovery of a new type of Diabetes (Type-3) caused by 'dirty electricity'. This is groundbreaking stuff.

You can read her paper here: http://d1fj3024k72gdx.cloudfront.net/Havas-Diabetes-EBM.pdf

She took 4 (four) cases of people with diabetes and noticed a trend between their blood sugar levels and their environment that suffers from "dirty electricity". From these 4 cases, she discovered this new type of diabetes that clearly is of importance to all of us.

For example: Case 2: 57-Year Old Female with Type 2 Diabetes

A 57-year old female with Type 2 diabetes takes no medication and controls her plasma glucose with exercise and a hypoglycemic diet. When she exercised by walking for 20–30 min at a mall after hours, her blood sugar levels dropped from a mean of 11.8 to 7.2mmol/L [212 to 130mg/dL] (p ¼ 0.045).

When she walked on a treadmill, her bloodsugar levels increased from 10 to 11.7mmol/L [180 to 211mg/dL] (p ¼ 0.058) (Fig. 2).

Treadmills have variable speed motors and produce dirty electricity.

Her conclusion is thus that if you're diabetic, you might not be a Type-1 or a Type-2 after all, but could be a Type-3, caused by "dirty electricity".

Fortunately she points us to a web site (http://www.stetzerelectric.com) that sells 'filters' you can plug into your wall sockets to clean up the 'dirty electricity'. She recommends about 20 of these filters for an average home but also warns that a plasma TV will require at least 3 or more filters, compare to just one for a LCD TV.

She also recommends buying a 'dirty electricity' meter from this site (http://www.lessemf.com/).

The shielded underwear (http://www.lessemf.com/personal.html) they sell is quite cool.

ghoti

19-05-2010, 02:58 PM

ROFLOL @ Klos`s post.

Pwning the snake oil salesman, one post at a time :D

Good one.

Klos

10-07-2010, 07:33 PM

Anyone knows what happened to the "Electromagnetic Radiation Research Foundation", started by Tracey-Lee Dorny?

Popped over to their web site (http://www.emrresearchfoundation.org) to see their latest 'research' but it looks like the web-site is gone?

Wonder what happened?