Search This Blog

Wednesday, April 9, 2014

comment to "Conclusions of the Canadian report confirm that EHS research, and its review, are polluted by the bad science" on BRHP blog.

link to original article - http://betweenrockandhardplace.wordpress.com/2014/04/06/conclusions-of-the-canadian-report-confirm-that-ehs-research-and-its-review-are-polluted-by-the-bad-science/

Following is my comment:
In order to test if a person is EHS you should use objective measurements of body, nerve, blood flow, temp, hartrate, EEG, and other characteristics. The test needs to be done in clean controlled environment. You must first run a set of tests to determine to which types of EMF the subject is sensitive to and from what levels. Only then try to see if he reacts to the exposure every time. A person can be sensitive to one, 2 , few , most or all types or EMF (3G data, UMTS, GSM, CDMA, WIFI, FM, AM , cellphone antenna, ELF magnetic field, EMF electric field, EMI and other). A proper "recovery time" should be given between exposures. As both an electronic professional and an EHS it is very easy to me to understand that the person in front of me is also an EHS just by talking to him and guiding him/her in exposure reduction for few weeks. If only it was that easy for the scientist to see that. In a study group there should be at least an MD , a biologic and an electronic engineer. It is very sad, that as you said, In most studies there is only a psychology doctor trying to prove his point that it is all in our mind. Thanks for telling the truth.
Amir B.

No comments:

Post a Comment