I'm a paragraph. Click here to add your own text and edit me. It's easy.
I'm a paragraph. Click here to add your own text and edit me. It's easy.
I'm a paragraph. Click here to add your own text and edit me. It's easy.
Conspiracy Archive
The 5G Conspiracy Theory
Claim: Scientists are speaking out
This points top movements by scientists speaking out about RF radiation
It's not, actually. There are scientists speaking out. The problem I have with this in premise is all of the science saying there is no link between radiofrequency radiation and adverse health affects in humans is seen as the bad science, and these scientists speaking out are automatically the "Real" scientists. It's a direct parallel between the mainstream and the anti-mainstream, or the alternative thinking. The scientists saying there are no health effects are automatically evil and incompetent, and the anti-mainstream scientists are automatically the brave and brilliant spreaders of real science.
The most prominant four sources are:
-EMFScientist
-5GSpaceAppeal
-PowerWatch
-Bio Initiative
Disclaimer
When it comes to refuting conspiracy theory claims with science, I'm fairly ok doing that. When it comes to being able to analytically say this scientific study is valid or not valid, I am not within my level of knowledge usually to do that. That's also OK. It's not a bad thing to admit you don't fully know what you're looking at. There's a lot of knowledge I know I don't have, and very likely an even greater amount of knowledge I don't know I don't have.
In my view, the world's collective scientific advisory and regulatory bodies set standards by looking at the science and make decisions based on good and bad science. If one or two institutions said the same thing, you could be somewhat sceptical, but if huge bodies collaborate on consensus, then it raises eyebrows to me if sites claim overwhelming scientific evidence.
The general outset
They look very convincing. The problem with these kinds of sources are that they have so much information that looks or is legit, that sifting through and finding all of the inconsistencies for someone who isn't an expert in radio wave science will take an eternity. Usually they link to a single or maybe two studies that aim to conclusively prove their points about the effects of RF radiation. A slight contradiction in my eyes is if a site like Bio Initiative claim to have reviewed over 1000 studies, then the 5G Space Appeal site using one or two studies to support their assertions is an eyebrow raiser to me.
Before I get into any of these pages, a common criticism I see is their acceptance of a concept called electromagnetic hyper sensitivity. I had to look up what this was and what the science says. I mention this because to me, if the science isn't concrete on this and these pages make out that it is, it raises questions about their bias and accuracy.
The following pages reference a large number of studies in the hundreds at least. I don't want to hand-wave that away, but it does strike me as strange that if there are so many studies proving these things, that it isn't considered scientific consensus. To me, it makes me think that they might be doing the same thing that alternative-thinkers like to do sometimes which is hit you with a massively loaded statement. Instead of making point followed by point, alternative-thinkers sometimes like to bombard you with a tsunami of statements that on their own are very weak, but make it impossible to tackle all at once.
I'm not saying that's what these sites are doing, however. I'm open-minded and if the information is good, then it's what we should base our opinions on.
The World Health Organisation has this to say on the topic of EHS:
"A number of studies have been conducted where EHS individuals were exposed to EMF similar to those that they attributed to the cause of their symptoms. The aim was to elicit symptoms under controlled laboratory conditions."
"The majority of studies indicate that EHS individuals cannot detect EMF exposure any more accurately than non-EHS individuals. Well controlled and conducted double-blind studies have shown that symptoms were not correlated with EMF exposure.
It has been suggested that symptoms experienced by some EHS individuals might arise from environmental factors unrelated to EMF. Examples may include “flicker” from fluorescent lights, glare and other visual problems with VDUs, and poor ergonomic design of computer workstations. Other factors that may play a role include poor indoor air quality or stress in the workplace or living environment."
"There are also some indications that these symptoms may be due to pre-existing psychiatric conditions as well as stress reactions as a result of worrying about EMF health effects, rather than the EMF exposure itself."
In a study in the Bio Electro Magnets Journal titled Idiopathic environmental intolerance attributed to electromagnetic fields (formerly ‘electromagnetic hypersensitivity’): An updated systematic review of provocation studies, they reviewed 46 blind or double‐blind provocation studies. Blind studies mean the participants don't know what's being tested, and double-blind means both the testers and the patients don't know.
"No robust evidence could be found to support this theory. However, the studies included in the review did support the role of the nocebo effect in triggering acute symptoms in IEI‐EMF sufferers. Despite the conviction of IEI‐EMF sufferers that their symptoms are triggered by exposure to electromagnetic fields, repeated experiments have been unable to replicate this phenomenon under controlled conditions."
A peer-reviewed study in the Environmental Health Perspectives journal conducted a double-blind study on 44 people claiming to be EMH, and 115 controls.
"For the three quick double-blind tests (in session 1) and the three 50-min double-blind tests (sessions 2–4), participants judged whether the base station was “on” or “off” and indicated how confident they were of this judgment using a scale from 0 “not at all sure” to 100 “completely sure.” We chose the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve method to analyze the responses, as this takes into account not only accurate (hits) and inaccurate responses (false alarms) but also how confident participants are of their judgments."
"During the double-blind tests there was no difference between active and sham exposures in either the total number of symptoms or the total symptom score for either group. Sensitive participants reported more symptoms than did controls, but this was not related to exposure condition."
"Participants made “on”/”off” judgments during both the 5-min and 50-min double-blind exposures. Sensitive participants had an accuracy rate of 55.2% during the 5-min tests (d′ = −0.08, sensitivity = 66.4%, specificity = 32.7%) and 59.8% during the 50-min tests (d′ = 0.20, sensitivity = 69.3%, specificity = 40.9%). The control group had an accuracy rate of 51.4% during the 5-min tests (d′ = 0.10, sensitivity = 51.7%, specificity = 50.8%) and 50.1% during the 50-min tests (d′ = 0.06, sensitivity = 48.0%, specificity = 54.3%)."
"implying that participant performance for each group did not differ from chance. Only two sensitive and five control participants were able to correctly identify all six “on”/ “off” judgments, while no one correctly distinguished between the GSM and UMTS signal 100% of the time."
"Further analysis revealed that this increased arousal was most likely due to a higher proportion of sensitive individuals receiving the UMTS signal first. It is not surprising that sensitive individuals would be more anxious in the first of the double-blind sessions, given the degree of uncertainty they may have felt in not knowing how the signal would affect them. This was reflected in the significant condition by group interaction for the anxiety-related measures of anxiety, tension, arousal, and relaxation. However, during sessions 3 and 4 the sensitive individuals knew what to expect and were overall less anxious."
"The present data, along with current scientific evidence, led to the conclusion that short-term rf-emf exposure from mobile phone technology is not related to levels of well-being or physical symptoms in IEI-EMF individuals. Furthermore, IEI-EMF individuals are unable to detect the presence of rf-emf under double-blind conditions."
The science seems to be pretty clear on this. We don't fully know, but from the evidence it seems that the symptoms of EMH individuals might come from other sources. The symptoms are real, but the science doesn't seem to support EMR being the source. The link seems mirky at best and the double-blind study above showed people claiming to be hypersensitive were no better at guessing if there were actually exposed than normal people.
With that out the way, let's move on.
Before I start I want to steelman the sites I will be looking at. A steelman is a method of presenting the argument of your opponent in its strongest presentation as to give it proper weighting. This is the opposite of a strawman which is to make the other viewpoint look weaker to defeat it easier. And for full transparency, I've already done so as of writing this section.
These websites below are genuinely concerned for the public about the increasing prevalence of radiowave and microwave technology which they feel has had an overwhelming and undeniable amount of evidence to support their health effects. Any products they sell are a product of their desire to help people and built from the knowledge of this all being true. There have been biological effects from radiowaves shown in mice and rats, and there are indications or correlations throughout a number of scientific papers. Their concern is that without EMF radiation being demonstratably completely safe, it's a public health concern that needs to be addressed.
For full disclosure as well, when supporting my points I make or when sharing sources, I have always ignored pages which support what I'm investigating that look like they're unofficial sites, blogs, or inherintly biased. I have ignored a good number of pages for this reason, as I didn't feel it to be honest to be obviously bias when investigating bias.
On their home page they write:
"People who suffer from electrical sensitivity are facing the reality that they may have no place to go that is free from EMF hazards."
If you recall from the section above, this raises doubts to me. It makes me think they're viewing the science through a bias lens.
On their list of recommendations, number 6 says:
"Medical professionals be educated about the biological effects of electromagnetic energy and be provided training on treatment of patients with electromagnetic sensitivity."
I'd like to know the people behind the page. If we're to take anything seriously, it has to have weight behind it. This page has five scientific advisors:
-Magda Havas
-Henry Lai
-Ronald Melnick
-Joel M. Moskowitz
-Annie J. Sasco
On their quotations page they have quotes from 25 people. 4 of these are their own advisors and one is their appeal campaign director. It's not totally misleading, but in my eyes if you're presenting a quotes page it should be from people not connected to your website.
I'm not trying to detract from these scientist's credentials or credibility. Not at all. But 5 scientific advisors is a bit of a low number.
They also link to the Powerwatch website I will mention later.
They have a section linking to 833 studies that prove the effects of EMF. It's a page written by one person who is one of their advisors. I will just quickly read his summary.
"In 2011, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) of the World Health Organization classified radio frequency radiation (RFR) “possibly carcinogenic to humans” (Group 2B). The IARC plans to review RFR again by 2024 because most peer-reviewed studies published in the past decade found significant evidence that RFR causes genotoxicity. Thus, the IARC will likely re-classify RFR to either "probably carcinogenic to humans" (Group 2A) or "carcinogenic to humans (Group 1) at the next expert review."
I don't think that he can say with confidence that this will happen. I've talked below about the reasoning behind this classification and shared a direct quote from the IARC's report saying:
"The available studies are of insufficient quality, consistency or statistical power to permit a conclusion regarding the presence or absence of a causal association between exposure and cancer, or no data on cancer in humans are available."
Causal being the important word. Correlation is one thing, but causation is vital when making claims regarding X causing Y. This page then links to the bio initiative website which I discuss below.
There is then a very unspecific set of quotes from studies not mentioned or in context of what they're studying. What I did is went on their EMH studies page. I went right to the bottom and read up.
"These findings are similar to previous double-blind studies with other mobile phone signals (900-2100 MHz), which could not establish any clear evidence that mobile phone signals affect health or cognitive function."
Interestingly enough on this one, the writer underlined it thinking it was so important to their proof:
"Our findings suggest that the adverse symptoms experienced by electrosensitive individuals are due to the belief of harm from TETRA base stations rather than to the low-level EMF exposure itself."
Another thing to point out. This website has a habit of underlining or making bold specific bits of information as to highlight where you should point your attention. This looks quite misleading to me as it detracts from the idea that we should examine all of the information instead of focussing on specific parts that someone else finds important.
On one extract this is everything that wasn't underlined, which interestingly is pretty important:
"Thirty patients having skin problems experienced being caused by work with visual display units (VDU) were tested double-blind with two VDUs. One VDU had strong electrostatic and electromagnetic fields and the other VDU had an identical appearance but the electrostatic field and electromagnetic fields were practically eliminated. Approximately 80% of the patients reacted with stinging or itching in the face during the 3 hours working period with 25% relative humidity in the room. No difference between the VDUs was found with regard to provoking these symptoms. At 60% relative humidity 13 patients of 19 experienced stinging or itching in the face. Those 13 that reacted were asked to come another time and were informed that the VDU was not turned on and that all electric fields that were present came from the cable to the VDU. A green cloth was put over the VDUs. This time 11 of the 13 patients reacted with stinging and itching in spite of the fact that the VDU was turned off"
I then went half-way down the page and started reading again.
"However, the number of reported symptoms was higher during sham exposure than during real exposure conditions. In addition, none of the test persons could distinguish real RF exposure from sham exposure. Hence, we conclude that adverse subjective symptoms or sensations, though unquestionably perceived by the test subjects, were not produced by cellular phones."
"The results should be interpreted with caution. But they suggest that there is widespread concern among the general population about risks to health posed by electric and magnetic fields. More research is warranted to explore ill health among people reporting hypersensitivity to electric or magnetic fields."
"In this study, two volunteer groups of 18 self-declared EHS and 19 controls were exposed to both sham and real RF exposures by a CDMA cellular phone for half an hour each. We investigated the physiological parameters such as heart rates, respiration rates, and heart rate variability (HRV). In conclusion, the RF exposure by a CDMA cellular phone did not have any effects on the physiological parameters for both groups."
"There was also no evidence that the EHS group perceived the magnetic field better than the non-EHS group. In conclusion, the subjective symptoms did not result from the 60 Hz, 12.5 µT magnetic field exposures but from other non-physiological factors."
This isn't me cherry-picking either. Remember, this is their own collection of proof. Half of these extracts prove the complete opposite of what they're claiming. Here are supposedly 833 studies proving the effects of RF radiation, but if this is the standard for what constitutes proof on their part, I'm very concerned. Did they even read these studies or just add them to a list of studies and use the bulk as a means of achieving proof by numbers? I don't know.
To get a better idea, I went online to find the opinion of other critiques.
Other opinions
Science-based medicine has this critism of the EMFScientists page:
"Reading the petition and the PST website feels like I am reading something that warns about GMOs or vaccines. I am not putting this in the exact same category, but what they have in common is the cherry picking of evidence for possible adverse effects, and then listing them as if they are established and non-controversial."
"Of the requests above, the only ones I fully agree with are that scientists need to disclose contacts with industry (for the record, I have none), and more research is needed. Of course children and pregnant women need to be protected – but what does that mean? That is too vague to be useful. I also agree with public education, but not with what the petitioners want, which I think constitutes misinformation and unjustified fearmongering."
"Even for an organization dedicated to assessing the risk of radiofrequency technology, it is advisable not to overstate the science, lest you lose credibility and may actually hurt the cause you are fighting for. I think this will be the ultimate result of this petition."
Aside from this, it's pretty difficult to find critism of this site. It might be because it's an appeal and not a report like the Bio Initiative report (which this page links to) which has been heavily criticised.
They also lump together studies which cinclude phrasing such as "could be" or "might be" which is important. That's speculative language, not definitive.
Scientific American has this to say on thje topic of Joel M. Moskowitz, one of the five advisors to this page. He is also the writer of the 833 studies page as far as I can tell.
"Firstly, science is not conducted by petition or arguments to authority; it is decided solely on strength of evidence. And claims such as Moskowitz’s are a complete misrepresentation of the evidence base. Far from being a harbinger of medical woe, the scientific consensus points starkly in the opposite direction. A multitude of quality studies conducted over the past few decades have found no measurable detrimental effect of RF radiation (RFR) on human health."
"Many of the studies Moskowitz linked to are of poor quality, and more tellingly, at least one he listed flatly contradict his dire assertions."
I have shown this above as well quite clearly on the topic of sharing studies that don't support their conclusions.
In an article in the American Council on Science and Health titled UC Berkeley Psychologist Joel Moskowitz Is Cell Phone, Wi-Fi 'Truther', they write:
"No matter the evidence, some people always will refuse to accept it. Some of those people are university professors.
Joel Moskowitz is one of those professors. With a background in mathematics and social psychology, he now serves as Director of the Center for Family and Community Health at the University of California-Berkeley School of Public Health."
"Dr. Moskowitz disgraces the University of California-Berkeley in precisely the same way Dr. Oz and Mark Bittman disgrace Columbia University: They are charlatans who wrap themselves in the prestige of academia to peddle foolishness to anxious parents. He is a blight upon academia and a nuisance to public health."
That one is much more aggressive that I'd like, but it demonstrates a very real controversy and rejection of his evidence and proof for the things he claims by reputable sources.
Let's start off with the opening statement:
"RF radiation has been proven harmful for humans and the environment"
This already raises concerns for me. We know that radiowaves at lower frequencies penetrate biology more, and 5G is a high frequency radiowave and doesn't penetrate past the skin. We also know that effects vary depending on the strength of the electrical or magnetic field. This blanket statement makes it seem like all radiowaves cause harm, when in fact, it's specific to the frequency range and strength.
"Despite widespread denial, the evidence that radio frequency (RF) radiation is harmful to life is already overwhelming."
The bias here is quite obvious. There are studies showing indications of health impact, and there are studies showing none. To my knowledge, a causal study doesn't exist, and on the topic of EMH for example, there is evidence to the contrary. So I don't think the evidence is overwhelming to suggest that this is the case and to say that shows dishonesty in regards to how the evidence looks.
Looking down at the references for supporting the claims of biological health effects, each point references one single study, except mice, birds and ADHD which have two. I'm not convinced of something based on one study as we know, that studies can be prone to bias and studies have to correlate together, and follow-up studies sometimes don't align with the original.
So as with the usual investigation, who is behind this appeal?
Arthur Firstenberg is the writer of the appeal. There are two references for the 10 000 studies review claim. One is from the cellphone task force, and one is the Bio Initiative report. I go into the Bio Initiative report later. What about the cellphone task force? He is one of the board of directors, and they promote his book on this homepage.
Their mission statement says:
"The Cellular Phone Task Force is dedicated to halting the expansion of wireless technology because it cannot be made safe."
Does that sound scientific and unbias? I don't think so. They also allow you to donate 50 dollars to help them continue their work.
So does he and by extention this task force have a financial conflict of interest in claiming 5G and radiowaves are a public health disaster? Yes. He sells his book which the task force promoted on their home page and they accept donations. No EMF fear, no book sales, and no donations.
Back to the appeal for a moment. 10 000 papers. OK, how many references are in the appeal? 123. The link to the cellphone task force and the BIR (Bio Initative Report). The BIR self-proports to have studied 1800 papers. The other link takes us to a 1984 page which is basically an index of studies which states:
"CUMULATED INDEX TO THE BIBLIOGRAPHY OF REPORTED BIOLOGICAL PHENOMENA ("EFFECTS") AND CLINICAL MANIFESTATIONS ATTRIBUTED TO MI CROWAVE AND RADIOFREQUENCY RADIATION"
"This index to the bibliography of reported biological effects and clinical symptoms attributed to microwave and radiofrequency radiation exposure has been prepared by Julie Moore and Associates"
All supplements in this document are dated as being from the 1970's. Adding up the list of citations from all sections including apendix 2 gives a citation number of 8800. Is this where the 10 000 figure is coming from? The total list of citations across a broad range of studies which are only mentioned in a barely readable single line? Not a single study abstract, result or conclusion or even discussion is here. It's just a list of studies. I'm not taking their word for it, because that's not being sceptical.
Here are some lines from this supposed collection of EMF harm evidence:
Frogs - Reflexes, 84, 1631
Frostbite - Therapy, 1236
Growth - Bread Acids, 4741
Guinea Pig Skin, 184, 861
Infrared Cameras, 3297
Intensive Local Hyperthermia, 3647
Monkeys, 2410, 3798, 4289
Muscle blood flow, 4053
Ovens, steam, 3119
Physicological aspects - space medicine, 4360
Rabbits, 53, 2366
Safety - lasers, 3698. 3901
Solar radiation - mitosis, 2634
Soviet research - Magnetic suspension trains, 3705
Temperature - Human thighs, 4453
Thawing - Organs, 3114, 3334
Ultrasound, 1405, 2776, 3310, 3311, 3362
Ultraviolet light - exposure, 3264
Water, potato waste. 2080
Wood products - insect control, 4049
Wounds - infectious microorganisms, 3113
X-ray radiation, 932, 3718
Xenon - 133, 2832, B3EC?
Yeast, beer, 3779, 4049
There are 150 pages of single line references and this is from a skimming through. I mean, maybe there are some ground-breaking definitive research papers done on monkeys, bread, frostbite and potato waste that proves the harmful effects of EMF from 1984, but I don't see it.
There was much much more but I didn't want to repeat myself or make this way too long. OK, so let's take something from this list. Who doesn't like beer? We'll take Yeast, beer, 3779, 4049.
Whatever this references, I couldn't find it. It did lead me on an entertaining rabbit hole taking me to a document about a technology to clean beerlines with radiowaves by breaking up Yeast. Now this is directly from the company and obviously isn't a peer-reviewed journal. But I found it fun anyway. StayClean Beerlines everybody. I also found a radiowave pale ale for sale (that rhymed).
Anyway, in the StayClear experiment, the RF transmitter cycled through a range of frequencies and was confirmed as on by listening to the buzz of a radio receiver. This proves everything, I'm going to sign the appeal and donate right now.
So let me get this straight. The 10 000 studies claim is based on the Bio Initiative report and this 1984 collection of one line references to studies we can't find that include things like x-rays, frostbite and potato waste. This is the level of proof that he presents? This is the bar in which we set our standard of evidence?
His language is clearly bias and inflammatory. When digging into the supporting evidence, it's weak. Very weak. At face value, it looks convincing and overwhelming, but if you dare to check the claims made, you find it to be a house of straw.
I will start this section by saying that since I first saw this page I was quite impressed by it. I have left my previous write up untouched on the 300 Ghz page. But, I have to investigate everything and anything to see what's going on. I can't take this site at face value any more than I should any other site.
When looking at sites like this that are seemingly squeaky clean: non-profit, no government, no corporate influence and so on, that we examine the background of these sites.
Powerwatch's director is Alasdair Philips. He is pretty open in his about page with his financial interests. I don't want to seem like I'm automatically trying to discredit this man because I'm not. But, if there is room for bias and conflict of interest, we should be aware of it. He sells EMF detectors, dirty electricity filters, EMF radiation alarms and more as technical director of EMFields Solutions Ltd. He is also technical director of Sensory Perspective Ltd, which sells EMF shielding and different types of EMF detection. The site's two operators (from what I can tell) also sell a home EMF safety book on Amazon.
So dispite the outset appearence of being purely about the science, there is a very real conflict of interest here. If no one's afraid or concerned about EMF, he doesn't sell shielding or detectors. But again, it's meerly an observation. Let's not write off the site's content as that would be wrong. Let's look at it and see what it says.
As with EMFScientist, I would like to focus on EMH (Electromagnetic hyper-sensitivity). Mainly because it will help keep this page consistent without wandering off down 400 rabbit holes, and we get closer to the truth when we look at specifics. If you generalise your attention over 50 directions at once, you get nothing done.
Powerwatch says:
"EHS is often faced with scepticism under the basis that people are bathed with EMFs all day long from countless sources, including light from the sun and the earth's magnetic field, so if those don't cause a problem why would other sources of EMFs Mobile? Why would the body react any differently just because it's pulsed a bit? Besides, most people aren't complaining about it - if it was a real issue, surely more people would be reporting the symptoms?"
I'm apprehensive, because the description is a transparent strawman of the argument against EHS. Double-blind studies have shown that people claiming to suffer from EHS can be triggered when EMR isn't present. I doubt someone with such a scientific collection doesn't know this.
"People with Photosensitive epilepsy are fine when exposed to light normally, but when they are exposed to light which flashes at a certain frequency - typically 16-25Hz, they go into a seizure"
This seems a bit of a misdirection to me, but maybe I'm reading it wrong. I say this because the frequency of the light isn't what causes the photosensitive epilepsy (PSE), from the Epilepsy Society:
"Some people are sensitive to geometric patterns with contrasts of light and dark such as stripes or bars. Patterns are more likely to be a trigger if they are changing direction or flashing, rather than if they are still or moving slowly in one direction."
The Epilepsy foundation says this:
"For about 3% of people with epilepsy, exposure to flashing lights at certain intensities or to certain visual patterns can trigger seizures."
On the subject of what can cause an episode:
"Certain visual patterns, especially stripes of contrasting colors."
"Frequency of the flash (that is, how quickly the light is flashing)"
"Television screens or computer monitors due to the flicker or rolling images."
"Natural light, such as sunlight, especially when shimmering off water, flickering through trees or through the slats of Venetian blinds."
I don't doubt this is what he means, as his description of the frequency flicker that can cause PSE seizures aren't in the same range as light itself by a massive distance. I can't help but think that the writer seems to want to draw a parallel with PSE to EMF as an example as a way to legitimise EMH.
My issue with this page isn't the information on it as I'll be quite transparent right now. When I first found this page when writing the 300GHz page, I found it very interesting and stated that. I also appreciate the inclusion of whether a study does or doesn't show effects as opposed to say the EMFScientist site which lumps everything together and doesn't say which does and doesn't prove their point.
When we look at the section on EMF effects, three studies listed for miscarriage are:
Here are some extracts from the first study, both the results and the discussion below:
"We conducted the prospective substudy to evaluate the stability of the measurements over time (12-week measures vs 30-week measures) and to determine whether the miscarriage risk results based on 12-week measures are similar to the nested study results based on measurement at 30 weeks. We found that measurements obtained around 30 weeks’ gestation were not well correlated with measurements obtained around 12 weeks’ gestation, especially for the RCM and maximum levels"
"Despite these poor correlations, we found that miscarriage risk results for women with 12-week personal total 24-hour magnetic field exposure at or above the 50th percentile for the RCM and the maximum value were consistent with the results found in the nested study results (Table 9 and Figure 2). Women with these measures were about two times more likely to have a miscarriage than those women with personal exposures below these values. Also, consistent with the nested study results, there was no clear association found between wire code and miscarriage."
"Unlike the nested study results, the personal TWA magnetic field exposures above 2.0 mG for the total home and for the other environments were positively associated with miscarriage risk"
Then in the discussion below:
"First, we obtained personal magnetic field measures for only 50% of those recruited for the study. This could result in selection bias if participation were differential with respect to exposure status. The nested design allowed us to evaluate selection bias. Overall, selection bias appeared to be minimal for important, known miscarriage risk factors. However, bias cannot be entirely dismissed."
"However, we cannot rule out bias from differential loss for reasons we are unable to assess. For this to occur subjects would need to have been aware of sources of brief high fields, and the cases and controls would have had to differentially enter the study on the basis of this exposure. The coherent results of the prospective study argue somewhat against this."
"Secondly, we obtained the magnetic field measurements months after the occurrence of the miscarriage. Perhaps exposures measured later in pregnancy do not reflect earlier exposures. This could be true differentially for the still-pregnant women, whose activities at 30 weeks’ gestation might be different from what they were earlier in pregnancy. For a subset of prospective substudy participants, their later measurements were not completely consistent with their earlier measurements, especially for the RCM and maximum values."
"About three-fourths of our participants experienced a personal maximum field exposure above 14 mG or an average change in fields (RCM) above 0.42 mG during the 24-hour measurement period. An odds ratio of about 2.0 or higher was found for these metric values. Hence, if these exposures were actually causal, they could account for a nontrivial proportion of the background rate of miscarriages. If these metric values were lowered to below the 25th percentile levels and if the associations were causal, the rate of miscarriage in our study would theoretically be reduced by a few percentage points."
"These findings are not consistent with the results of mechanistic and mammalian studies. 17 However, a number of laboratory studies have reported alterations in the development of chick embryos exposed to EMF."
From the second study:
"Spot measurements did not show a consistent pattern of an association between increased exposure level (in quartiles) and the rate of miscarriage. In our study, the residential wire-code category was not associated with either MMF or risk of miscarriage (the results can be obtained upon request)."
"Several potential limitations need to be kept in mind when one interprets the results of this study. First, our information on personal MF exposure was based on 24-hour measurement during the index pregnancy."
"The single 24-hour measurement, however, may not be representative of the MF exposure level during the entire relevant gestational period, resulting in misclassification of the MF exposure level. Because any misclassification of the MF exposure was unlikely to be associated with the risk of miscarriage and therefore nondifferential, it would probably have resulted in attenuation of the observed association. Nonetheless, we decided to examine further the factors that may influence this exposure misclassification."
"The potential misclassification of MF exposure was likely to be influenced by two factors: temporal variation in MF level and daily activity pattern. Few studies have evaluated the temporal variation of MF exposure level."
"If MMF exposure is truly associated with the risk of miscarriage, one would expect the association to be stronger among women whose measurement day reflected their typical day during pregnancy."
"After excluding women whose MF measurement was obtained on a nontypical day, various other measures also indicated a stronger association (Table 6). This observation provides further evidence that prenatal MMF exposure may be genuinely related to the risk of miscarriage."
"Although the overall participation rate (39%) was low, this was a prospective cohort study and MMF exposure level was largely unknown to the general public. Thus, the low participation rate was unlikely to be associated with MMF exposure. In addition, although we do not know the MMF level for nonparticipants, our data records revealed that the rate of miscarriage among nonparticipants was 17.2%, compared with 16.4% among participants"
"Our study did not have information on the exact sources of measured MMF ≥16 mG. Fields of such magnitude can be found near electric appliances (for example, microwave ovens and fluorescent desk lamps); very close to devices with electrical motors (for example, hair dryers, can openers, and fans), electric equipment in the work place, and electrically powered transit systems; and under or above certain types of power lines."
"Although the potential mechanisms of a possible MMF effect on the risk of miscarriage are not currently well understood, early fetuses are known to be sensitive to environmental insults. A disruption of early fetal development at the cellular or molecular level by external MFs could conceivably result in fetal death. Despite the lack of clear understanding of the underlying mechanisms, these findings raise the question of a possible effect of MMF on early fetal loss."
And finally from the third study
"Female mice were exposed to 50 Hz, 1.2 mT electromagnetic fields during the whole pregnant period (8 h/d). The body weight of dams, delivery and development of offsprings were observed and measured."
Now this is purely speculative on my part as I don't understand the nuance in scaling up biology compared to exposure to radiation at all, so this will be purely a crude and basic scale up.
The average female mouse weight is up to 35g. The average UK female weight is 70kg. If we scale that up, a female mouse would be 2000x smaller than the average female. If we clunkily apply that to their 1.2mT exposure (again, not a scientists here) we would end up with a human exposure of 2.4 Tesla. 1 Tesla is 10 000 Gauss. So we would have 24 000 Gauss exposure comparitively to humans.
According to the EPA:
"The recommended magnetic field exposure limit for members of the public (24-hour exposure) is 0.1 millitesla (mT) or 1,000 milligauss (mG), and for occupational exposure (whole working day) is 0.5 mT (5,000 mG)."
So if we just examine this for a moment, the study exposed mice to magnetic fields 12x greater than the recommended safe limit for humans, and if we scaled it up they exposed mice at 24 000x the exposure limit. Even if that doesn't scale in a linear direction, that's dramatically over the safe limit that we're exposed to.
Study 1 showed some ambiguity over the results and discussed the potential for bias and inconcistency.
Study 2 found an association but openly showed no causation and they did find some indication
Study 3 blasted mice way over the safe level for humans
I have acknowledged and said on these pages that radiowaves, in particular low frequency radiowaves have the potential to affect biology. This process as I understand isn't fully studied or understood, but it has been observed. However, this doesn't demonstrate that our current exposure with the safety limits put in place are harmful.
My main problem is that if you were to pick three studies to prove that "People exposed to EMFs may develop" miscarriage, then these aren't the three to do that. The third study isn't even on humans.
While I don't doubt the intelligence of the writer of this page or his professional credentials, this raises my eyebrows. It looks to me like a bias reading of the evidence, and if I've only got 1/5 of the way down the EMH page and reviewed a claim at random (miscarriage) and found inconsistencies or things which don't add up to me, then how much on this page also does that?
The powerwatch site is a major player in the anti-EMF movement and I've debated people who religiously share their study list without reading them and I often find very mixed results from the studies I read. A good chunk show no association (which the site quite honestly states) but the people who share about this website don't do that.
Again, I don't want to seem like I'm trying to discredit or dismiss the scientists in these studies or the author of Powerwatch, but if you're trying to convince me that something is scientfically established, this isn't the way to do it.
Going through this site would be a massive rabbit hole adventure of endless tangents and knowing me, I'd get lost in it. I tried finding criticism of this site for additional viewpoints but they were hard to come by. Either searches came back with reviews of actual smart watches, or they were EMF awareness sites using them as a reference.
For the websites I've seen writing this page, Powerwatch is by far the most interesting and seemingly respected, but their evidence to support their claims in my opinion aren't enough to justify them.
Now a legitimate critisism of this page (mine) could very well be that I didn't read every study on every page and haven't touched the vast sum of studies they have on offer. That's true and you could very well make that point, but if I have reservations after looking at a small number of supporting studies out of an ocean of references, it raises doubts to me about the accuracy of their interpretation of the evidence.
I'm not going to review just under 2000 studies to review a single website. I don't have the knowledge to pick out the bad science as I said earlier. Unless you are a scientific expert in RF radiation, you don't have to know these specifics. That's why we have scientists. Here is the full report.
I will instead see what the leading scientific and guidance authorities who do understand the complexity of the science for their opinion on this report.
Here is a criticism of the Bio Initiative by a site called EMF and Health.
"The results of most of the studies showing harmful health effects cited in the Bio-Initiative Report are not supported by follow up studies - which are usually far more comprehensive. Repeatability of results is a critical hallmark of science."
"The work of a number of the contributors has been heavily criticized by other scientists. For example Lennart Hardell, is one of the co-authors of Chapter 10 on cell phones and brain cancer. Some Hardell et al.'s studies have been criticized in the scientific community for suffering from "recall bias". Patients who have been diagnosed with brain cancer are asked to fill in a questionnaire in which they are asked to remember how much they used their cell phones."
Carcinogen 2B Classification
When digging into the credibility of Lennart Hardell I came across this entry in the British Medical Journal titled "Mobile phone use and glioma risk: comparison of epidemiological study results with incidence trends in the United States." From this I learnt that the classification of radiowaves as a 2B possible carcinogen came from Lenndart's studies mentioned below:
"We estimated projected rates by combining relative risks reported in the 2010 Interphone study and a 2011 Swedish study by Hardell and colleagues with rates adjusted for age, registry, and sex; data for mobile phone use; and various latency periods."
"Participants Data for 24 813 non-Hispanic white people diagnosed with glioma at age 18 years or older."
"If phone use was associated with glioma risk, we expected glioma incidence rates to be higher than those observed, even with a latency period of 10 years and low relative risks (1.5). Based on relative risks of glioma by tumour latency and cumulative hours of phone use in the Swedish study, predicted rates should have been at least 40% higher than observed rates in 2008."
"Raised risks of glioma with mobile phone use, as reported by one (Swedish) study forming the basis of the IARC’s re-evaluation of mobile phone exposure, are not consistent with observed incidence trends in US population data, although the US data could be consistent with the modest excess risks in the Interphone study."
From a study in Environmental Health Perspectives titled: "Mobile Phones, Brain Tumors, and the Interphone Study: Where Are We Now?", they have this to say about the scientific consensus:
"Methodological deficits limit the conclusions that can be drawn from the Interphone study, but its results, along with those from other epidemiologic, biological, and animal studies and brain tumor incidence trends, suggest that within about 10–15 years after first use of mobile phones there is unlikely to be a material increase in the risk of brain tumors in adults. Data for childhood tumors and for periods beyond 15 years are currently lacking."
"Although there remains some uncertainty, the trend in the accumulating evidence is increasingly against the hypothesis that mobile phone use can cause brain tumors in adults."
This study is very extensive and pokes many holes in the two mentioned studies.
Campaign for Accuracy has also done something similar. It's a good read but does largely what I do which is sourcing information from reputable sources and quoting it so I'd highly encourage you to read it, but I won't quote anything from it.
It's also worth reading the IARC's report explaining their classification of radiowaves being a 2B carcinogen:
"The available studies are of insufficient quality, consistency or statistical power to permit a conclusion regarding the presence or absence of a causal association between exposure and cancer, or no data on cancer in humans are available."
Misconduct
The Bio Initiative report references a study by Robert P. Liburdy on cell phones causing dna damage. The National Institue of health have a summary of his being found be guilty of scientific misconduct by the Division of Research Investigations.
"Dr. Liburdy, former staff biochemist at LBNL, engaged in scientific misconduct in biomedical research by intentionally falsifying and fabricating data and claims about the purported cellular effects of electric and magnetic fields (EMF) that were reported in two scientific papers"
Science mag has also reported on this.
"a biochemist "engaged in scientific misconduct ... by intentionally falsifying and fabricating data and claims" in two studies on how electromagnetic fields (EMFs)--the kind shed by power lines and home appliances--affect living cells. The researcher, Robert P. Liburdy, formerly of the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL) in California, has agreed to ask the journals to retract the results."
In the Bio Initiative report they say on page 365 when talking about the above disgraced scientist:
"This finding has been replicated six times, but the original experiment and its replications have been ignored by many health oriented scientist."
The reference isn't provided for these six confirming replications but I find it odd they say his work has been ignored instead of relaying that he falsified data. This report is from 2012 and his misconduct was public in 1999. Interesting they don't mention this.
Here are some reviews of the Bio Initiative report by different institutions:
The Australian Centre for Radiofrequency Bio effects Research has published a report on the Bio Initiative report:
"Overall we think that the BioInitiative Report does not progress science."
"As it stands it merely provides a set of views that are not consistent with the consensus of science, and it does not provide an analysis that is rigorous-enough to raise doubts about the scientific consensus."
The Radiation Safety Journal has a piece called "COMAR Technical Information Statement: Expert Reviews on Potential Health Effects of Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields and Comments on the BioInitiative Report" had this to say:
"COMAR concludes that the weight of scientific evidence in the RF bioeffects literature does not support the safety limits recommended by the BioInitiative group. For this reason, COMAR recommends that public health officials continue to base their policies on RF safety limits recommended by established and sanctioned international organizations such as the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers International Committee on Electromagnetic Safety and the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection, which is formally related to the World Health Organization."
COMAR is The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc., Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society, Committee on Man and Radiation.
I found this criticism of the BIR from The Cellular Operators Association of India, titled "BioInitiative Report 2012 is structured on flawed procedure and biased perceptions." Here's what they had to say:
"The recently released BioInitiative Report 2012 is just an update on their 2007 report which had been heavily criticized as being biased, without balance and fornot being an objective comprehensive review, or a weight-of-evidence assessment. Several credible Health Organisations across the world had disowned the 2007 version of the report as having clear scientific weaknesses including selection bias in several research areas, lack of multidisciplinary weight-of evidence method which leads to a scientifically sound judgment, lack of updated info, no consideration of the scientific quality of the cited reports, amongst others."
"The BioInitiative Report and the Building Biology Institute are not recognised standards bodies in the area of EMF, and it is misleading to suggest that they are. The World Health Organisation (WHO) recognizes only two organizations (ICNIRP and IEEE) on developing EMF exposure standards or guidelines. "
Finally on this, the Health Council of the Netherlands said this:
"The Committee concludes that this report is not an objective and balanced reflection of the current state of scientific knowledge and does not provide any grounds for revising the current views as to the risks of exposure to electromagnetic fields."
These websites like to use big numbers to legitimise their assertions. 800 - under 2000 studies which when looked at don't prove that they say it proves, and half the time actually proves the opposite.
Here's the thing. You can't play the numbers game in a one-sided game, because you have to see what the opposing viewpoint says. The opposing viewpoint in this case is the scientific consensus. The World Health Organisation has reviewed some studies themselves. Want to know how many? 2000? 3000? 4000?! Surely not. How many studies on non-ionizing radiation can there be? Try 25000 over 30 years.
"In the area of biological effects and medical applications of non-ionizing radiation approximately 25,000 articles have been published over the past 30 years. Despite the feeling of some people that more research needs to be done, scientific knowledge in this area is now more extensive than for most chemicals. Based on a recent in-depth review of the scientific literature, the WHO concluded that current evidence does not confirm the existence of any health consequences from exposure to low level electromagnetic fields"
"Reported symptoms include headaches, anxiety, suicide and depression, nausea, fatigue and loss of libido. To date, scientific evidence does not support a link between these symptoms and exposure to electromagnetic fields. At least some of these health problems may be caused by noise or other factors in the environment, or by anxiety related to the presence of new technologies."
"Despite many studies, the evidence for any effect remains highly controversial. However, it is clear that if electromagnetic fields do have an effect on cancer, then any increase in risk will be extremely small. The results to date contain many inconsistencies, but no large increases in risk have been found for any cancer in children or adults."
"There is little scientific evidence to support the idea of electromagnetic hypersensitivity. Recent Scandinavian studies found that individuals do not show consistent reactions under properly controlled conditions of electromagnetic field exposure. Nor is there any accepted biological mechanism to explain hypersensitivity."
Review of the science
In this PubMed article titled Cell Phones and Cancer: What Is the Evidence for a Connection? They write:
"The epidemiological evidence for an association between RF radiation and cancer is found to be weak and inconsistent, the laboratory studies generally do not suggest that cell phone RF radiation has genotoxic or epigenetic activity, and a cell phone RF radiation-cancer connection is found to be physically implausible. Overall, the existing evidence for a causal relationship between RF radiation from cell phones and cancer is found to be weak to nonexistent."
From the American Journal of Epidemiology there is a study titled Cellular Phones, Cordless Phones, and the Risks of Glioma and Meningioma (Interphone Study Group, Germany).
This is a "population-based study centered in the areas around Bielefeld, Mainz, Heidelberg, and Mannheim (covering approximately 6.6 million inhabitants." The subjects included 366 Glioma cases, 381 Meningioma cases, and 1,535 controls.
"A major finding of this study is that no excess of temporal tumors was observed, either for gliomas or for meningiomas. Since this is the area in the brain with the highest energy absorption of cellular phone emissions, one would expect more tumors to appear at these locations. Given the sample size of this study, however, only a crude analysis of distributions of tumor locations was feasible; such analysis will improve when data from all of the Interphone countries are pooled."
"In general, the potential impact of selection bias and recall bias needs to be discussed for all interview-based case-control studies. While the refusal rate among cases was low in this study, it was much higher among controls, particularly among those of lower socioeconomic status. Since people with a more reserved attitude may be both more likely to refrain from regular cellular phone use and more likely to refuse to participate in a study like this, there may be a direct association between participation and the risk factor of interest, especially among controls."
"In conclusion, we observed no overall increased risk of glioma or meningioma among regular cellular phone users. With regard to the increased risk of high-grade glioma found among women only, other studies to date have not reported a similar effect; hence, this might have been a chance finding. There is also no supportive evidence regarding the tendency towards a reduced risk of meningioma seen among moderate cellular phone users in this study."
"The results of this study do not indicate an overall increased risk of glioma or meningioma among regular cellular phone users. These findings are consistent with the majority of previous studies on this topic (6, 7, 9, 11, 12)."
References 6, 7, 9, 11 and 12 are: (respectively)
Cellular-telephone Use and Brain Tumors (Journal of the American Medical Association):
"These data do not support the hypothesis that the recent use of hand-held cellular telephones causes brain tumors, but they are not sufficient to evaluate the risks among long-term, heavy users and for potentially long induction periods."
Handheld Cellular Telephone Use and Risk of Brain Cancer (New England Journal of Medicine):
"Our data suggest that use of handheld cellular telephones is not associated with risk of brain cancer, but further studies are needed to account for longer induction periods, especially for slow-growing tumors with neuronal features."
Cellular Telephones and Cancer--A Nationwide Cohort Study in Denmark (Journal of the National Cancer Institute):
"The results of this investigation, the first nationwide cancer incidence study of cellular phone users, do not support the hypothesis of an association between use of these telephones and tumors of the brain or salivary gland, leukemia, or other cancers."
Cellular telephones and risk for brain tumors - A population-based, incident case-control study (American Journal of Neurology):
"The results do not support an association between use of cellular telephones and risk for glioma or meningioma."
Long-Term Mobile Phone Use and Brain Tumor Risk (American Journal of Epidemiology):
"We conclude that these data do not support the hypothesis that mobile phone use is related to an increased risk of glioma or meningioma. It is, however, important to note that a carcinogenic effect after a very long induction time would remain undetected."
Meta Analysis and systematic reviews
Proof by numbers doesn't work if the collection is of terrible quality, prone to bias, or simply don't support the argument. These sites when put under a microscope have failed to convince me of the harm of radiowave radiation.
Here is a meta-analysis of 255 studies titled Comprehensive Review of Quality of Publications and Meta-Analysis of Genetic Damage in Mammalian Cells Exposed to Non-Ionizing Radiofrequency Fields.
"In this comprehensive review, four specific quality control measures were used to determine the quality of 225 published studies in animal and human cells exposed in vitro and in vivo to RF energy, and the results from 2,160 tests with different sample sizes were analyzed. The four specific quality control measures were as follows: 1. “Blind” collection/analysis of the data to eliminate individual/observer “bias”; 2. Adequate description of “dosimetry” for independent replication/confirmation; 3. Inclusion of “positive controls” to confirm the outcomes; and 4. Inclusion of “sham-exposed controls” which are more appropriate to compare the data with those in RF exposure conditions."
"1. When all four quality control measures were mentioned in the publication, the d values were smaller compared to those when one or more quality control measures were not mentioned in the investigation;
2. Based on the inclusion of quality control measures, the weighted outcome in cells exposed to RF energy (d values) indicated a very small effect, if any;
3. The number of published studies reporting no significant difference in genetic damage of cells exposed to RF energy, compared to that of control cells, increased with increased number of quality control measures employed in investigations;
4. The number of published studies reporting increased genetic damage in cells exposed to RF energy decreased with increased number of quality control measures; and 5. There was a “bias” towards the publications reporting increased genetic damage in cells exposed to RF energy even with very small sample size. Overall, the results from this study underscore the importance of including quality control measures in investigations so that the resulting data are useful, nationally and internationally, in evaluating “potential” health risks from exposure to RF energy."
Additionally, in a systematic review from Environment International titled A review of the ecological effects of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMF).
"Information was collected from 113 studies from original peer-reviewed publications or from relevant existing reviews. A limited amount of ecological field studies was identified. The majority of the studies were conducted in a laboratory setting on birds (embryos or eggs), small rodents and plants. In 65% of the studies, ecological effects of RF-EMF (50% of the animal studies and about 75% of the plant studies) were found both at high as well as at low dosages. No clear dose–effect relationship could be discerned. Studies finding an effect applied higher durations of exposure and focused more on the GSM frequency ranges."
Here's another systematic review this time from the WHO titled Systematic review on the health effects of exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields from mobile phone base stations.
"We included human laboratory trials and epidemiological studies, and we considered all the health effects that have been addressed so far. These include self-reported non-specific symptoms"
"In addition, basic quality criteria had to be fulfilled. Trials had to apply at least two different exposure conditions in a randomized and blinded manner. Epidemiological studies had to quantify exposure using objective measures (such as distance to the nearest MPBS, spot or personal exposure measurements, or modelling), possible confounders had to be considered and the selection of the study population had to be clearly free of bias in terms of exposure and outcomes"
"In total, 134 potentially relevant publications were identified; 117 articles were excluded as they did not meet our inclusion criteria (Fig. 1). Of the 17 articles included in the analyses, 5 were randomized trials and 12 were epidemiological or field intervention studies. The majority of the studies examined non-specific symptoms."
"In summary, when data from all the randomized trials and epidemiological studies were considered together, no single symptom or symptom pattern was found to be consistently related to exposure. The cross-sectional epidemiological studies, however, showed a noteworthy pattern: studies with crude exposure assessments based on distance showed health effects, whereas studies based on more sophisticated exposure measurements rarely indicated any association."
"Four randomized double-blind trials addressed the ability to perceive the presence of a radiofrequency electromagnetic field. None of these trials17–20 revealed a correct field detection rate better than expected by chance (Fig. 2) and there was no evidence that individuals who were hypersensitive to electromagnetic fields were more likely to determine correctly the presence or absence of exposure than individuals who were not hypersensitive"
"In our review of epidemiological studies we found that the more sophisticated the exposure assessment, the less likely it was that an effect would be reported. We also found no evidence that individuals who are hypersensitive to electromagnetic fields are more susceptible to MPBS radiation than the rest of the population."
"In conclusion, our review does not indicate an association between any health outcome and radiofrequency electromagnetic field exposure from MPBSs at levels typically encountered in people’s everyday environment."
"Where data are scarce, the absence of evidence of harm should not necessarily be interpreted as evidence that no harm exists. Further research should focus on long-term effects and should include children and adolescents. "
A meta analysis of 7 studies regarding EHS which included 182 self-declared EHS individuals from Science Direct from Environmental Research titled Radiofrequency electromagnetic field exposure and non-specific symptoms of ill health: A systematic review says
"There was no evidence that EHS individuals could detect presence or absence of RF-EMF better than other persons. There was little evidence that short-term exposure to a mobile phone or base station causes symptoms based on the results of eight randomized trials investigating 194 EHS and 346 non-EHS individuals in a laboratory. Some of the trials provided evidence for the occurrence of nocebo effects."
"This review showed that the large majority of individuals who claims to be able to detect low level RF-EMF are not able to do so under double-blind conditions."
A systematic review from the Bio Electro Magents journal reviewed 46 blind or double-blind provocation studies which included 1175 EHS individuals titled Idiopathic environmental intolerance attributed to electromagnetic fields (formerly ‘electromagnetic hypersensitivity’): An updated systematic review of provocation studies
"No robust evidence could be found to support this theory. However, the studies included in the review did support the role of the nocebo effect in triggering acute symptoms in IEI‐EMF sufferers. Despite the conviction of IEI‐EMF sufferers that their symptoms are triggered by exposure to electromagnetic fields, repeated experiments have been unable to replicate this phenomenon under controlled conditions."
The Canadian CDC has reviewed the science on EHS in a document titled Symptoms Attributed to Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields. In that they write:
"Population health observational studies linking non-specific symptoms with exposure to radiofrequency (RF) waves from mobile phones and mobile phone base stations have shown mixed and inconsistent findings, with a major limitation being poor exposure assessment and biases in the design of the cross-sectional studies"
"The results from provocation studies with adequate blinding in place indicate that RF fails to trigger symptoms in self-declared EHS individuals in a reliable, reproducible and consistent way. "
"Individuals considered to have EHS tend to score significantly higher on personality measures of somatization (conversion of mental states into bodily symptoms) and have a higher likelihood of psychiatric co-morbidity, in particular, somatoform and anxiety disorders. To what extent that these co-morbidities are due the consequences of exposure, rather than to antecedents, needs further investigation."
"The effects of cumulative, chronic exposure to RF on human health symptoms have not been well studied."
They reveiwed 4 systematic reviews or meta analysis. They are some of the publications above.
While the initial claim is completely true, that there are scientists speaking out about EMF radiation, that doesn't mean what they're saying is correct. After a bit of digging, virtually all of the people behind these sites have a financial insentive to make people concerned about radiowaves as they sell EMF shielding, sell books, and sell EMF readers.
I've looked at their claims and the studies and reasoning to support said claims and found a very clear indication of bias and many inconsistencies. For example:
The Bio Initiative report has reviewed 1800 studies.
EMFScientist has 833 studies on their site.
The 5G Space appeal references 10 000 studies.
To my knowledge Powerwatch don't disclose the total number of studies but I've seen numbers around 1600 mentioned.
So here is my question. Why have EMFScientist not seen the 1000 studies extra from the Bio Initiative report?
Why has the Bio Initiative report not seen these extra 8200+ studies from the 5G space appeal?
Furthermore, why has the EMFScientist site not mentioned the 9167+ studies that the 5G Space appeal has?
Are they unaware of the total body of scientific studies on the subject? If so, then how can they claim to be representative of the science?
Are the 9000+ studies mentioned by the 5G space appeal of inferior quality or substance compared to the 833 on the EMFScientist website? Or perhaps the extra 1000 in the BIo Initiative report are actually decent and the other 8200 studies aren't comprehensive enough, in which case why include them on the 5G space appeal?
How can these sites proport to represent the scientific evidence when they can't even agree on the number of studies there are which proport to prove the harm of EMF?
If we're playing the numbers game, then the World Health Organisation trumps them all put together reviewing 25000 studies. Oh but they're corrupt, right? Awfully convenient way to dismiss opposition isn't it? I've asked for evidence from people who claim this and I've never got an answer back.
The fact of the matter is that these sites offer a seemingly overwhelming bombardment of studies to prove the harm of EMF radiation. However, once you tackle the uphill battle of reading all of these studies one by one and actually reading what they say, a good chunk of them say the exact opposite. Some of them find indications or correlations, but I haven't seen a single causal study yet.
That's another thing. The number of studies which each site uses as overwhelming proof. Take the 833 from the EMFScientist website. How many of those don't support their claims? How small would that number then go? Take the 5G Space appeal's 1984 study index and take out all of the random lines which seemingly don't have anything to do with EMF radiation and how many studies will you be left with? Apply the same reasoning (as the document doesn't provide any extracts), how many studies would you be left with if all of the contradictory or non-confirming studies were removed?
To me their proof by numbers is a magnified example of confirmation bias when you look at systematic reviews and meta analysis of the science, specifically electromagnetic hypersensitivity which these sites readily accept as a given, when the reviews of the science find no evidence to support this.