End note
Your article on MRI
(This Week, 3 April, p 7)
reminded me of a story, probably untrue, related by a doctor friend.
MRI used to be known in hospitals as nuclear magnetic resonance, or NMR.
Unfortunately, patients who arrived at the hospital asking for “an NMR” often
received a treatment that they were not expecting.
Hence the change to MRI.
Mobile fears
Further to your article last week on mobile phone health effects and
shielding devices, I would like to take this opportunity to comment specifically
on the shielding devices test protocol used, and also more generally.
Readers may be unaware that the National Physical Laboratory tests used what
it describes as “real life” conditions. This means the phone’s power levels
would be constantly fluctuating to compensate for the ever-changing reception
conditions. Mobile users will recall that the signal strength indicator on their
phone display screens can move up and down in a matter of seconds. This is
caused by a number of uncontrollable variables, including the signal strength
from the nearest base station. When tests are carried out in these conditions, a
degree of inconsistency in results may be obtained.
It is for this reason that all mobile phone type-approval testing is carried
out in front of one of only two BABT-owned digital network simulators, each
worth several million pounds. NPL does not have one of these devices and has to
use “real life” tests. The Microshield case has been tested in front of one of
these BABT simulators at TUV at Fareham, and also just last year by British
Telecom on its privately owned network simulator. Tests showed that the
Microshield case could reduce radiation exposure, specifically in the direction
of the user’s head, by up to 99 per cent. Reductions away from the head were not
as significant, which explains why the phone can operate without dropping the
call.
The inconsistency of “real life” testing is amply demonstrated by the fact
that NPL carried out a similar set of tests on shielding devices and hands-free
kits for the BBC’s Healthcheck programme only ten weeks ago. Its
results showed that hands-free kits were reducing radiation levels by only 56
per cent, as opposed to the New 杏吧原创 studies which show 94 per
cent. That means in the BBC’s NPL test 44 per cent of the radiation is still
detected in the mock head. The inconsistency in the results may perhaps be due
in part to the different phones and hands-free sets used. The BBC informed us
that its protocol was run past the National Radiological Protection Board. Its
findings dispel the myth that using a Microshield might actually increase a
user’s exposure due to the mobile’s automatic powering-up process.
Equally significant, if the latest NPL results are accurate, the phone, when
used with an earpiece, is still emitting 94 per cent of its radiation from the
handset. Unless it is placed some distance away from the user, all that will
happen is that this remaining radiation will affect another part of the
body鈥攆or example, organs around the waist area, if the phone is kept on
the belt鈥攚hich may not be as able to protect itself as the head is, with
its thick skull.
Your article did not go anyway near far enough in emphasising the
significance of this by-product of using a hands-free kit. Your writer implies
that the main concern is brain tumours, but scientists are far more concerned
about bioeffects at cellular levels, wherever the phone is held. In normal
usage, these would centre around the head, but if changes in use determined that
other areas were being exposed then concerns would shift. Already we at
Microshield have had reports from users complaining that their phone has left a
mark on the skin, in the form of a red, inflamed, raised area of flesh which
hardens over time and which is exactly the same size and shape as the mobile
itself. These reports are from users who keep their phone held against or near
to their bodies for long periods of time, for example, attached to their belt or
under their armpit. Invariably, these symptoms have been diagnosed as necrosis
due to radiation exposure. The phones in question would have been in standby
mode, and therefore generally operating at significantly lower power levels than
they would be in talk mode, which is the case when used in conjunction with a
hands-free kit. There is now even a user who has developed a tumour on his spine
exactly where he used to keep his phone. Full details can be provided on
request.
Finally, on the subject of the test, we understand from the NPL that
researchers there were not provided with a set of our operating instructions,
which clearly state the conditions for the use of the Microshield antenna guard.
It is quite apparent from the test results that these conditions were not
adhered to: this is the reason behind many of the low shielding readings
obtained, and also why poorer reception was experienced. The statement that
higher levels of shielding are at the cost of poorer reception completely
ignores the fact that the Microshield’s antenna guard is fully adjustable to
cater for variation in reception conditions. It is also difficult to understand
why so much emphasis was placed in the tests on raising the antenna, when most
of the world’s best-selling phones no longer have extendable antennas.
Moving on to the rest of the article on health effects, I will summarise what
might otherwise be a very lengthy response by saying that your article seems
almost oblivious to the significance of the many major studies* published in
peer-reviewed scientific journals which have shown numerous biological changes
and effects associated with exposure to low-level microwaves such as those
associated with exposure to mobile phones.
Late last year, a symposium was held in Vienna* by a group of eminent
scientists from around the world to discuss, among other issues, mobile phone
health problems. They agreed that biological effects from low-intensity,
non-ionising radiation exposures are now scientifically established. The group
included scientists from the Environmental Protection Agency in the US and a
senior Canadian government adviser who has been enlisted to provide public
advice on the mobile phone issue. Full details of the proceedings are expected
to be released soon. This is in addition to the thousands of complaints of
symptoms being received from users, which are dismissed by the industry as
anecdotal evidence. In short, in our opinion it seems to us that you have been
too easily influenced by the industry spin put out in its defence against any
negative research results, rather than the views of independent scientists who
really have no axe to grind.
* References are provided on the New 杏吧原创 website.
Hacker's challenge
Oona Muirhead of the British Ministry of Defence claims that all its
satellite control systems operate on a “closed network” and cannot be accessed
from an outside telephone line.
While I am quite prepared to believe that they cannot be accessed from a
telephone line, I find the idea of a closed network satellite control system
slightly bizarre. Encrypted, yes, but closed? Scarcely.
The ground station antenna can be large enough to transmit in a narrow beam,
but the satellite antenna cannot be large enough to be very selective, nor can
it transmit a narrow beam. The only difficulty for a potential hacker, apart
from cracking the encryption if any, is getting hold of samples of “uplink”
traffic coming from the ground.
The strength of the uplink signal scattered back from the satellite is almost
certainly too weak to pick up at ground level. But the strength of the leakage
at the ground station sending the signal is almost certainly sufficient.
All a hacker needs to do is find the ground stations. Shouldn’t be too
hard.
Mind blowing
Alison Motluk describes how superior canal dehiscence syndrome (SCDS), in
which the mere sound of a busy tone on the phone or a child’s squeal can give
people vertigo, is caused by a fracture in the temporal bone directly above
the upper balance canal
(This Week, 27 February, p 16).
Another little-known syndrome is “central razzle”, in which part of the
brain, the thalamus, is damaged, making loud noises produce an unpleasant
sensation. Music, the sound of water, voices and other noises can produce this
bothersome sensation, which may be caused by the inhibition of the nerve
pathways in the brain that connect the auditory cortex with other sensory
areas.
It is believed to be an unusual syndrome, but may in fact have something in
common with the unpleasant feelings which most of us get from very loud
noise.
Seeing isn't believing
I applaud the research into the reliability of video evidence obtained
through the widespread use of closed-circuit television in Britain
(This Week, 27 March, p 27).
I must say, however, that I believe that the conclusions are a
little alarmist.
Video evidence and untaped images on CCTV are not routinely relied upon to
obtain convictions. CCTV is first and foremost a crime prevention tool, and it
excels in this role.
Operators seeing criminal activity or behaviour of concern relay what is seen
to police or security staff. After arrest, however, corroboration is invariably
sought by questioning or further gathering of evidence. Many suspects admit
defeat when confronted with good-quality video evidence. Again, this
corroborates the taped evidence.
The value of the cameras is not that they make us 100 per cent certain of
identification. The fact that an operator can give details of gender,
approximate age, height, build and clothing is often a lot more than we have had
to work with in the past. But it is never relied upon as sole proof and, in this
respect, there is little to fear from Big Brother.
Not our problem
Your recent editorial on nuclear waste
(27 March, p 3)
criticises the green movement, saying it does not always contribute
constructively to the problem of nuclear waste.
Why should it? The Green movement is not going to legitimise the nuclear
industry by helping it find a dodgy solution to its long-term storage problem.
That would mean the industry could go on producing contamination indefinitely.
It should cease production first, and then society can deal with the deadly
legacy of its failed technology.
If enough people cry “not in my back yard”, the industry will have to face
the fact that ordinary citizens do not want it or its pollution.
Emotional appeal
I am deeply disturbed by your story on chickens given genes that made their
wings develop into legs
(This Week, 20 March, p 21, and
Editorial, p 3).
In spite of your editorial, I will continue to consider these animals as “freaks”,
because there is no way they could be called natural.
You imply that the British media’s impassioned reaction to the “Frankenstein
bird” goes too far. But it would be good to see some passion in science, as well
as in the public. We, as scientists, need to sit back occasionally and look at
the emotions involved in the projects we undertake, as well as the cold facts.
Let us never forget that Josef Mengele was “scientifically” collecting the
facts, without the hindrance of any passion, compassion or morals.
Letter
I must disagree with the statement in your editorial that “without trust, no
amount of scientific argument is convincing”. The whole success of science is
based on the absence of trust: “Prove what you say. Can someone else demonstrate
the same thing?” This is why science has progressed so far.
And that is what is so mysterious to nonscientists. They do not know or
accept that the rejection of all emotion, including trust, is the foundation of
modern science.
Sadly, the new generation of scientists has to take much on
“trust” because there would be too much to learn and investigate at first
hand.
Wasted potential
Elizabeth Griffin’s challenge to ageism in academic funding
(Forum, 20 March, p 48)
can be put even more briefly: why hire young researchers in preference to
older ones because they “have more potential” if you are consistently going to
stop funding them before they have time to fulfil that potential?