#1111: comments from EMF Sensitivity. com
From EMF Sensitivity.com:
A Perspective on EMF Research
Some thoughts on why it is so difficult to obtain clear, consistent, and meaningful results with EMF research.
1) EMF Silence: Research is performed without achieving true EMF silence. That is, research scientists ensure that the one specific frequency that they are studying has been shielded. However, the full spectrum of frequencies is not considered, measured, shielded, or addressed in any manner. In fact, EMF silence is never achieved. This causes inaccurate, inconsistent, and misleading results.
2) Worst case scenario: Research should be performed on the worst case scenario. In the worst case, when there are a multitude of EMF sources, each operating at the maximum allowable strength, how do experiments change? To what extent do frequencies interact, for example with power lines, and amplify the results?
3) Complete EMF Monitoring: The leading research organizations and the peer reviewed press do not require any verification of EMF shielding or EMF readings during experiments. A description of how electromagnetic fields were shielded, and a description of the room, building, and location of each experiment should be strictly mandated. In particular, a reading of the ambient background EMFs throughout the entire experiment should be required (0-300GHz).
Research scientists oversimplify the EMF equation. In actual fact, there are overlapping regions of EMF radiation that are experienced at each location that vary over time. Electromagnetic fields vary greatly from building to building, and from country to country. Yet, scientists are bewildered when they cannot replicate studies.
4) Meter Discrepancies: Industry research is driven in large part by the meters made available to scientists. However, many meters do not allow for time based readings, even though EMF fluctuations over time are the norm. Additionally, there exists significant discrepancies between EMF metering equipment. For example, in many instances, equipment designed to RECEIVE signals is more powerful than equipment designed to MEASURE signals. Finally, meters show cumulative EMF readings, yet EMF standards are based on individual frequency readings.
5)Cell Phone Focus: Research is funded in large part by the cell phone industry. As a result, almost all funding is dedicated to research 2 or 3 specific frequency bands. These results are either extrapolated or implied to refer to the entire EMF spectrum.
6) Focus on the Symptom: It would involve a relatively minor cost to expand the frequencies examined by each research study to involve a much wider spectrum (e.g. 0-100GHz). Yet, this is rarely done.
It is more important and easier to focus on the health symptom and to finetune which frequency is causal, rather than to focus on the frequency and conclude that no health problems have been found.
7) Inclusion: The population groups most likely to be affected by EMF sensitivity are frequently excluded from participating in EMF studies. This includes young children, the elderly, and individuals with underlying illnesses. In actual fact, individuals with EMF sensitivity are marginalized by scientists.
8) Expand on success: Successful experiments are buried. Unsuccessful experiments are repeated and overemphasized to prove the inconsequentiality of electromagnetic fields.
9) Transparency: Research scientists should be required to state their source of funding, as well as any conflicts of interest in their studies, similar to financial disclosures made by news organizations.
10) Accountability: Research scientists should be required to sign their research studies under penalty of perjury. Research affects the lives of millions of individuals. It is time to ensure accountability in the system.