|
To: Andy Davidson
Date: 16 April 2004
Dear Andy
Apologies for the delay in replying. I've been out and things are a bit hectic at present.
Regarding progress no I have not got any news yet. I understand a mast exposure simulation lab is being commissioned to do double blind tests on volunteers. [ed.: I believe this is the Essex MTHR study and TETRA is excluded.] They should be grateful for willing volunteers like yourself. I will chase the query up next week.
The point I was making to the Guardian was about the scientific ranking of evidence for a health effect. For mobile phone signals there are plenty of anecdotes and some observed biological effects. There is no published evidence of effects in animals, or in humans via epidemiological studies.
There is no evidence of effects in people who have worked with radio waves or radar, stretching back over 100 years.
When you see all four strands of evidence linking up then it becomes an accepted health risk. Tobacco, coal tar and asbestos are clear examples. The evidence is broadly ranked in the following increasing importance; firstly anecdotes, then the biological, the animal and the epidemiological.
The news media tends to concentrate on the least reliable evidence, the anecdote, because they are obvious human interest stories. I don't mean to be offensive here, but however firmly you feel you are affected, others will claim different effects, or none at all. So the anecdote is inherently unreliable, but we should not ignore them of course. As you mention they can be the first pointers to a real effect.
One problem here is, the "noise" on the receiving end. Our post bag (and Inbox!) is full of claims of all manner of health effects, from skin rashes to cancer. They cannot all be true, I'm very sure of that. But could one or two be real? It certainly needs to be investigated given the proliferation of mobile telephony.
I will e-mail again when I have some definite information.
Michael Clark
| 
