A couple of additional observations:
- This study was funded specifically by a company in the industry that has financial interest in the outcome. The study was done to refute a previous study showing harm from base stations. To their credit, the reporters state as much in the article. But for us, this is a strong hint that something is amiss. We know that industry funded studies, as we have previously discussed on the SWI website, are six times more likely to find "no problem" than independent studies. So, whenever you have an industry funded study, the presumption -- based on real data -- is that it is designed to support the industry's view. If you were a betting person in the industry, you could rest assured that the outcome you want will be delivered six hundred percent more often. Not bad. There is nothing independent about it, and in the case of this new study, the outcome underscores the premise that industry bias is operative.
- The study did not study the source of the EMR health risk problem as we now know it from mechanism data. Information Carrying Radio Waves (ICRW) are the components that trigger adverse biological responses leading to health effects. ICRW come from people talking on the phone. This study used simulated signals with no talking -- thus, no ICRW. Thus, the study had no chance to find health effects. The study was a set up to show nothing by its design. A low risk study -- without ICRW as part of the exposure matrix.
|