cogreslab said:
When you have a shackled scientific endeavour, punctuated by examples of what happens to those who step out of line (Liburdy's 1992 FASEB paper reporting an important electric field effect directly led to his scientific assassination. He was a truly outstanding scientist, now working in the LA patent office; Gerard Hyland was booted out of Warwick for his outspokeness on TETRA; the late Ross Adey was booted out of Loma Linda for refusing to alter the Motorola study results; The WTR chief scientist had to write a book to get the concerned message of their findings over to the public; Olle Johannsen at the Karolinska nearly lost his lab for a year or so; the McGill team reporting electric field (transient) effects were deprived of their data for two years; the EPA review of EMF in 1990 which called EMF a probable (B1) carcinogen was suppressed by the White House; Helen Dolk's paper reporting elevated incidence near Sutton Coldfield transmitters was held up for two years; Denis Henshaw lost his MRC funding partly for his views on corona ion effects which the NRPB debunked vigorously (though he hopes he might recover it), and even within NRPB a postulated lack of funding prevents them from even using the instruments they are given for research (and what can just two researchers do, anyway: we now have more graduates and researchers in our lab than they do!); and others like Keith Mclaughlan at Oxford nearly lost their jobs I suspect were it not for changing their tune to syncopate with the establishment drum); punctuated by evident academic accolades for those who stay in line (e.g. Profs Ray Cartwright, Coggon, and Barker, etc), it surprises me not a whit to read the kind of comments you quoted.
Ignoring the alleged merits of Russian and Chinese research, let's look at some of your examples of scientific integrity and "suppression" above.
1. Liburdy. Thrown out for misrepresenting research data to create "evidence" of an effect which didn't exist. Hmmm....
2. Gerald Hyland. I found a quote from a report by Gerald Hyland:
From:
http://www.mercola.com/2000/dec/17/mobile_phones.htm
The human body is an electrochemical instrument of exquisite sensitivity whose orderly functioning and control are underpinned (6) by oscillatory electrical processes of various kinds, each characterised by a specific frequency, some of which happen to be close to those used in GSM. Thus some endogenous biological electrical activities can be interfered with via oscillatory aspects of the incoming radiation, in much the same way as can the reception on a radio.
What is reference 6? Ah, it's this: Smith CW, Best S. Electromagnetic man. London: Dent & Sons, 1989.
Smith CW? Not our old friend Cyril Smith by any chance. Remember? Pendulums, dowsing, boiled egg slicers etc..... Hmmm, one might argue about the scientific credibility of anyone who things our old friend Cyril is a credible scientific reference!
3. Ross Adey is credible. But to the best of my knowledge his work could not be reproduced in independent experiments.
4. "The chief scientist of WTR". Would this be Dr George Carlo by any chance? The same Dr Carlo who worked for years for Phillip Morris (the tobacco company) and whose job was to fend off any scientific challenges that might prove smoking unsafe? The same Dr Carlo who is on record as saying that cell phones could NOT possibly have any adverse health effects and were unconditionally safe?
The same Dr Carlo who suddenly changed his tune at the time when he published a book about alleged cell phone hazards? Hmmm....
5. Olle Johansson of Karolinska Institute. Is this the same Olle Johansson who did a "blind" experiment to prove electrosensitivity by putting a girl into a faraday cage and then bringing in a bag containing a mobile phone, and separately a bag containing papers, and stating that she was proven electrosensitive because she could tell which bag contained the mobile phone MOST of the time? And you stated elsewhere that the Karolinska institute considers your lymphocyte experiment scientifically valid - remember the one where you (effectively) weigh the black and white cat 10 times for "statistical confidence"?. Not Olle Johansson's group by any chance? Hmmm.....
6. Not enough information to comment on "McGill" etc.
7. The EPA review. This was the DRAFT report, the one that was never published. The one of which the EPA later said it was "not appropriate" to label EMF's as a probable carcinogen on the basis of apparent epi associations alone because no mechanism had been found and there was no evidence suggesting which levels were safe or not. Is that the one?
8. As far as I know Helen Dolk is credible. And her report is out there freely available to anyone who wants to look. But her report is again a statistical EPI study that shows an APPARENT association between leukaemia cases and a very high power broadcast transmitter. The dangers of high power broadcast transmitters have been known and generally accepted since the 1940's.
9. Denis Henshaw. The same Denis Henshaw who is curiously quiet in reponse to enquiries as to whether the above allegation is true?
Quite a few Hmmmm's there............
), and then compare that with the weight of a cow measured in kilograms. By committing the further error of extrapolating individual results to populations, I could then reach the conclusion that cats are heavier than cows!
