Different countries have different standards for all sorts of things. But this is every bit as much proof that the US limit is too low as that the EU limit is too high.

> why are children advised not to use mobile phones

Because their skulls are thinner, and, as Gary says, there is a thermal effect. The thickness of skull required to block that thermal effect has been calculated.

> why do mobile phone companies include clauses in their terms of use that preclude them for being sued for ill health effects as a result of long term use.

Because all large companies have extremely paranoid legal departments. But their job is to protect the firm from legal judgments, not from physical proofs. If you want to use legal get-out clauses as proof of physical effect, well, hey, my fridge’s instructions include a safety warning not to spray water on the outside of the fridge. If you want to interpret that as proof that fridges explode when they come into contact with water, best of luck converting others to that cause.

> why have 1500 tests proved that people are affected.

There’s a difference between showing that people have symptoms and showing what causes those symptoms.

Anyway, if you’re so keen on test results, what do you think of the proper double-blind scientific testing that shows, again and again, that sufferers are not affected by wifi sources? Those tests don’t count, I take it?

> why do the crops that grow under powerlines have different yields to those more distant.

If that’s true, could be all sorts of reasons (the zinc coating on pylons might well have something to do with it, since it’s poisonous to plants), but what’s that got to do with anything? Even if the radiation’s bad for plants, doesn’t mean it’s bad for humans. Removing all the carbon dioxide from their environment would kill the plants, but would have no effect whatsoever on you. Diesel fumes aren’t as bad for plants as petrol fumes, but are worse for animal lungs.

> why was asbestos used as a building material and now its not?

Because it’s a very good fireproofing material and because it turned out that its fibres screw up your lungs if breathed in.

> surely if there are so many unanswered questions …

They’re not unanswered questions. I just answered them all no problem. They’re questions to which you either don’t know or don’t accept the answers.

> … impartial, informed research should be carried out to help us?

Impartial informed research is being carried out, and has been for decades. But what you mean here is that, if you don’t like their results, you accuse researchers of being partial.

> what rights have users of wifi or wimax technology got that they are able to shower all people in the area with radiation. surely i should have the right – affected or not – to know about this?

Just to be clear here, you’re suggesting that I shouldn’t be able to use a mobile phone in the street without the express permission of everyone who lives in that street?

> who in turn recommended beta blockers. i wasnt happy. it was as if they thought my ’sensitivity’ was in some way psychosomatic.

Sorry, I don’t follow you here. Beta blockers have a real physical effect. How does prescribing them imply a lack of physical effect to be treated? They can only treat you; it’s not as if they can prescribe that all your neighbours cease to use wifi.

I’m sorry you feel that I haven’t considered both sides – I’ve quoted professor challis calling EHS sufferers who take part in studies as “heroic” and repeatedly said that whatever people are suffering from, they’re suffering. The question is, what’s causing it?

To date, every properly controlled study into electrosensitivity has been unable to show any connection between EMFs and symptoms – and for some of the claims about EMFs to be true, we’d need to completely rewrite the laws of physics.

The exception may be mobile phones (handsets, not masts), because they do have a thermal effect – and if EMFs are going to do anything to us, that’ll be how they do it. We’ve yet to prove a correlation between that and ill-health, but given that there is clearly some kind of thermal thing going on it does make sense to limit under-sevens’ use of mobiles.

In the article I’ve quoted scientists saying “we haven’t found any connection yet, but we’ll keep looking” – which is the right and proper thing to do, because there is clearly something going on that’s causing people pain. My concern is that there’s already an industry of quackery growing about this, with supposed experts exploiting people.

> surely if there are so many unanswered questions impartial, informed research should be carried out to help us?

I agree entirely.

around 4-5 years ago i was first exposed to wireless computer network technology (wifi). to cut a long story short – i get headaches when i am in the vicinity of a wifi point.

i had to recommend that my neighbours change their dect phone – and i cant play on the Wii with my kids.

then i started looking into the problem. i visited the doctor he referredme to a neurosurgeon, who in turn recommended beta blockers. i wasnt happy. it was as if they thought my ’sensitivity’ was in some way psychosomatic. but hang on could i tell a text was being received – could i tell when someone bluetooth, or wifi was switched on. yes so therefore it couldnt be my head that was the problem.

i then started to monitor web pages by scraping new wifi related reports. 4 years ago i was lucky to get 2 a week. Now i get 10 a day.

As you are a cynic can you answer the following;
why does the US and canada restrict SAR levels on cell/mobile phones at a different level to the eu?

why are children advised not to use mobile phones – if they are not safe why not inform under age users of the dangers.

why do mobile phone companies include clauses in their terms of use that preclude them for being sued for ill health effects as a result of long term use.

why have 1500 tests proved that people are affected.

why do the crops that grow under powerlines have different yields to those more distant.

why was asbestos used as a building material and now its not? – and 40 years after exposure to asbestos people are still contracting asbestosis.

what rights have users of wifi or wimax technology got that they are able to shower all people in the area with radiation. surely i should have the right – affected or not – to know about this?

surely if there are so many unanswered questions impartial, informed research should be carried out to help us?

and finally people who suffer with hypersensitivity come from all walks – teachers, firemen and prime ministers.

so next time you right an article – i ask you to consider both sides.