copied from a forum (i couldn't have put it better myself):

I have worked for many years in scientific research and I can tell you
that nothing of any value came from that exercise (I wont call it research
because that is what it was not).

In message <f8nmh6$j23$2@news.datemas.de>, Lenny <lenny@say.no.to.wifi>
writes
you can substantiate your claim and establish your credentials then
people may begin to listen to you, so far all you have published is a
bunch of pseudo science from a bunch of nut jobs.
--
Clint Sharp

On Tue, 31 Jul 2007 17:03:53 +0100, Lenny <lenny@say.no.to.wifi>
wrote:

I wouldn't disagree with that.

In case it didn't come up with the result which suited them. It's
quite a common problem amongst single issue pressure groups whose
members minds are made up and who do not wish to be confused by
facts.

That's OK, enough people who claimed to be affected managed to get
there.

Some withdrew before blind testing, whether this was due to their
psychological reaction to being told the transmitter was on made them
disinclined to continue or their own realisation that they wouldn't
be able to fiddle the tests and get the results they wanted is
unknown. The number remaining was still sufficient.

The GSM band covers (taking the worldwide extremes) 880MHz to 960MHz.
The UMTS band covers 1885-2200 MHz. Are you seriously suggesting that
people may be sensitive to say 890 MHz but not 891 MHz? The test
included the UMTS as well as the GSM 900 and 1800 Mhz bands.

It implies nothing, unlike dipstick "activists" they were looking for
objective evidence - not propaganda.

All of the so called "ES" subjects claimed to be able tell
immediately they were exposed.

"The open provocation test verified that when sensitive individuals
knew the base station was emitting either a GSM or UMTS signal they
self-reported lower levels of well-being and more symptoms than
during the sham condition. This demonstrated that the laboratory
conditions did not prevent sensitive individuals from reacting to
either the GSM or UMS signals."

I don't think much thought went into any of those, none of which were
in any way related to this report.

That would be consistent with the conclusion of the report that the
ailment is psychosomatic.

Actually none of the self declared "sensitives" could consistently
detect any emissions. The 2 "sensitives" _and_ six controls who
identified the 6 on/off sequences correctly is what you would expect
from random choice.

As a cleaner?
--
Peter Parry.
http://www.wpp.ltd.uk/

Peter Parry wrote:


<snigger>

--
Ian Edwards

To all those who believe in telekinesis, raise my right hand.

"brightside S9" <address@replyto_is_not.invalid> wrote in message
news:kr83b3tdu7p19pge5ccvbr4g5og9bu45re@4ax.com...
You don't need qualifications to do useful research.
It does help peddle quack stuff if you have them though.

In message <f8ssn5$qc0$1@news.datemas.de>, "dennis@home"
<dennis@killspam.kicks-ass.net> writes
place I visited yesterday could be said to work in
--
Clint Sharp