A new study that shows people who say radio waves from cell phone towers are making them sick are exhibiting a purely pyschosomatic reaction won't be the last nail required to seal this particular coffin of pseudo-science. But as a double-blind randomized test of the alleged effect, it surely should.
The British team, lead by Elaine Fox of the Department of Psychology at University of Essex, published "Does Short-Term Exposure to Mobile Phone Base Station Signals Increase Symptoms in Individuals who Report Sensitivity to Electromagnetic Fields? A Double-Blind Randomised Provocation Study" this month in Environmental Health Perspectives. (doi:10.1289/ehp.10286 and a free PDF is here.) It is a paragon of straightforward science writing, right from the title on down. From the abstract:
Results: During the open provocation [during which participants knew when the cell tower was active and/or inactive], sensitive individuals reported lower levels of well-being in both the Global System for Mobile Communication (GSM) and Universal Mobile Telecommunications System (UMTS) compared to sham exposure, while controls reported more symptoms during the UMTS exposure. During doubleblind tests the GSM signal did not have any effect on either group. Sensitive participants did report elevated levels of arousal during the UMTS condition, while number or severity of symptoms experienced did not increase. Physiological measures did not differ across the three exposure conditions for either group.
Conclusions: Short-term exposure to a typical GSM base station-like signal did not affect well-being or physiological functions in sensitive or control individuals.
In other words, it was all in the minds. From the BBC's coverage:
"Belief is a very powerful thing," said Professor Elaine Fox, of the University of Essex, who led the three-year study. "If you really believe something is going to do you some harm, it will."
Given the number of previous, though less rigorous, studies that have come to the same conclusion, none of this is surprising. But I found the final thoughts of the authors of this new paper to be rather interesting:
Given the current findings, together with findings of related research (Rubin et al. 2005), it is imperative to determine what factors other than low-level rf-emf exposure could be possible causes of the symptoms suffered by IEI-EMF [idiopathic environmental intolerance with attribution to electromagnetic fields] individuals, so that appropriate treatment strategies can be developed.
Indeed, how do we deal with people are just plain scared of technology, so scared that they frighten themselves into physiological distress?
- Log in to post comments
More like this
What about the case here in Australia, with the alleged large cluster of brain tumours diagnosed in a particular office building with mobile phone towers on the roof?
I'll bet there were other factors in common as well. Without strong evidence that towers can cause cancer, why would you conclude that was the factor responsible?
Caledonian is right, correlation does not imply causality. Now, if only he could apply that reasoning to the correlation between CO2 and the slight increase in temperature in the last century.
I'll bet there were other factors in common as well.
Not necessarily. In a random distribution, you're inevitably going to get some clusters. And some of those clusters will probably coincide with phone towers - after all, you're more likely to get a cluster in an area with a high population density, and you're also going to find more towers in high-density areas.
Now, if every building with towers on the roof had a cluster, you'd have some evidence.
If it's the same office building, many factors will be shared by necessity.
Hey - all of these cases were in Australia. Clearly, Australia causes brain tumors.