tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30315787462410647832009-02-23T06:27:20.320ZMy Own Personal Blog which is separate from Mast Sanity the Charity. It's my own views, but I work closely with Mast Sanity in the UK.martinsharpnoreply@blogger.comBlogger14125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3031578746241064783.post-36737623508038338902008-10-03T22:26:00.003Z2008-10-03T22:34:58.131Z

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theoneshow/onepassions/2008/10/are-mobile-phones-safe.htmlTranscriptJopson: "Time to debunk the top 3 mobile myths"[MOBILE MYTH No.1 ... BRAIN TUMOURS]Jopson: "Your mobile phone is effectively a radio that uses high frequency microwaves coming in and going out. So, are we all frying our brains? Well, the largest ever mobile phone brain tumour study says "No". The survey

martinsharpnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3031578746241064783.post-20051086432685450642008-01-01T22:24:00.000Z2008-01-01T23:10:58.465Z

Slingshot PublicationsPRESS RELEASEAGANST DR BEN GOLDACRECultural Dwarfs and Junk Journalism is Martin Walker’s fourth book charting the development of the corporate science lobby that has grown rapidly since New Labour came to power in 1997. One of the most recent exponents of the Lobby is Dr Ben Goldacre who has regurgitated a bad ‘Science’ column in the Guardian newspaper since 2003.Like other

martinsharpnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3031578746241064783.post-24710539686435468762007-07-25T11:11:00.000Z2007-07-25T11:20:32.984Z

What a surprise!After eliminating the most sensitive electrosentive volunteers for being made too ill to continue the Essex study finds that electrosensitivity is all in the mind.The BBC predictably quote Rubin - the king of other similarly flawed studies - to give the thumbs up.See the BBC's predictably biased account here .Predictably "old friends" are cooing here .Read the Mast Sanity Press

martinsharpnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3031578746241064783.post-57698041983036031932007-07-01T10:51:00.000Z2007-07-05T14:53:34.285Z

Bias is defined as "an inclination to favour or disfavour one side against another in a dispute, competition, etc; a prejudice."Scientific research can be manipulated by individuals with a specific bias or agenda to fit the result that they are after.If you wanted to show that electrosensitivity is purely psychological you would set out with that premiss and build in fundamental flaws to your

martinsharpnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3031578746241064783.post-22657978514246819552007-06-25T19:51:00.000Z2007-06-25T19:54:40.129Z

Since we believe that Wi-fi isn't safe and that you would be better off using the wired alternatives I have joined together with some friends and associates to produce a few simple tips to help you to get back to life in a wired, wireless-free world.See my other blog.

martinsharpnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3031578746241064783.post-53434983170009661942007-06-04T09:53:00.000Z2007-06-23T21:22:17.532Z

I've given up with Ben Goldacre - he has decided that microwaves are safe and that electrosensitive people are not affected by electromagnetic radiation.More than that he appears to be embarking on a vendetta or crusade against the victims of electromagnetic radiation.Instead of Championing a cause against many Wireless Goliaths he is siding with them.I have just discovered that he was an invited

martinsharpnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3031578746241064783.post-91251861855098256022007-05-29T17:20:00.000Z2007-06-23T21:22:37.393Z

Ben Goldsmith aka "Bad Science" appears to have completely lost the plot with the recent Panorama programme dedicated to Wi-fi. He made some scurrilous accusations about Powerwatch's Alasdair Philips without backing up his claims with anything more than his own "bad science". Maybe he should stick to medical issues - he is at least trained in them!He claimed that:-1. Powerwatch is not independent

martinsharpnoreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3031578746241064783.post-64047994898832456982007-05-21T16:58:00.000Z2007-06-23T21:15:24.918Z

Hey Bill,Are you off on another rant to defend WiFi?That dihydrogen monoxide sounds bad - why don't you campaign against if you believe it is so dangerous?Then you could leave us to campaign against what we believe is so dangerous - wireless.I'm a bit disappointed that you didn't reply to me about my complaint to the BBC about your previous article -you obviously didn't read the evidence and

martinsharpnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3031578746241064783.post-58287499293996245182007-05-14T20:52:00.000Z2007-06-23T21:16:24.598Z

(Copied to BBC Online Editors and Media Lens)Dear Bill,Re: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/6583815.stm "Wi-fi? Why worry?"I found your answer somewhat glib and self-indulgent. I will answer your comments in order of "merit". You state : "However there are no reputable studies to demonstrate any adverse effects from the use of wifi and, as I point out in my article, there is no credible

martinsharpnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3031578746241064783.post-5144943245709056572007-04-27T09:04:00.000Z2007-06-23T21:17:24.763Z

A Reply to the Guardian's article:You are quite wrong to poo-poo the effects that wireless microwave technologies such a Wi-fi, digital cordless (DECT) and Mobile Phone Masts have upon biological creatures such as humans. There is a vast amount of Independent Scientific Research which points to potentially very serious health problems and real symptoms such as electrosensitivity (EHS) right up to

martinsharpnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3031578746241064783.post-71425908028380125222007-04-24T22:01:00.000Z2007-06-23T21:18:13.636Z

An open letter to Bill Thompson (and the other gadget freaks).I admire your ostrich like attitude to wireless technologies. I can only assume that your body works along different lines to those of most humans and that the laws of physics and biology don't apply to you. Or maybe you should get out more.For those of us who live and breathe with other people I would rather side with the "tin hat

martinsharpnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3031578746241064783.post-34947882854031186092007-04-24T14:01:00.000Z2007-06-23T21:18:43.384Z

After the excellent articles in the Independent on Sunday and Sunday Times on Sunday 22nd April there was bound to be a backlash from those interested parties, but it is very disappointing that it came mostly from the BBC.In an article entitled "Wi-fi Why worry?" correspondent Bill Thompson has completely gone off into a rant and lost the plot. I was so incensed that I have complained, as follows

martinsharpnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3031578746241064783.post-57780656186995180002006-12-29T16:31:00.000Z2007-06-23T21:00:13.012Z

Before landlords rush to cash in on the idea of placing a Mast or Mobile Phone Antenna on the top of their block of flats, as Bernard Slade in Wimbledon Park intends to do, they might like to consider a few points. Firstly, more and more evidence of negative health effects and cancer clusters are being linked to Mobile Telephone Masts in residential areas. If, or more likely, when these health

martinsharpnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3031578746241064783.post-5910138768411622282006-12-23T20:18:00.000Z2007-06-23T21:19:41.494Z

Various UK towns and cities, town in Spain (new Saville), Naila (Germany) Long term effects: - Start off as sleep disturbance, migrains, heat rashes, high blood pressure - Progress to depression (whose incidence has greatly increased over last 10-15 years) - Progressing to pre-cancer conditions and cancers In UK studies, Dr. John Walker, Physicist ex-of Dunlop said, “I know of no mast

martinsharpnoreply@blogger.com0