Overall various sources suggest that there are in excess of 20,000 published scientific papers covering this topic where broadly speaking the majority demonstrate biological interaction. In the Bioinitiative Report alone, approximately 5,000 studies have been reviewed and they conclude with many powerful statements including “Bioeffects are clearly established…. Sensitive populations including the developing fetus, the infant, children, the elderly, those with pre-existing chronic diseases, and those with developed electrical sensitivity (EHS) must be protected.”
Funding is well known to bias study results. “The industry-funded studies found an effect in 28% of the studies and the independently funded studies found an effect 67% of the time.” 1 2 (Prof Henry Lai via Lloyd Morgan)
If industry funded literature is considered a conflict of interest (as has been deemed appropriate in a court of law 3), then the scientific wealth of literature demonstrating cause for concern is over-whelming.
Common research failures include:
In appropriate data processing: It is not uncommon for biological effects of EMF to cause polar opposite changes in the same parameter 4 depending on exposimetry or individual subject variations. If changes occur in both directions but are then averaged, the changes can no longer be seen and ‘no effect’ is inappropriately reported. Current studies which find “no effect”, can be littered with design inadequacies such as this. For example with. blood pressure changes, if half of a group are found to have hypertension (high blood pressure) and half hypotension (low blood pressure), if the mean is taken then no effect may be found even though autonomic nervous system disturbance is apparent.
Study Reproduction Failures: Attempts at reproducing data will often fail, due to inconsistencies in replicating the exact design of the original study 5.
Consistency is not necessary: One positive study is not counterbalanced by a negative one. It can be easier to fail to find an effect than it is to prove an effect exists. The Seletun Scientific Panel notes that complete “consistency” of study findings is not to be expected, and it should not be interpreted as a necessary pre-condition for a consensus linking EMF exposure to health impacts. “Consistency in nature does not require that all or even a majority of studies find the same effect.” 6 This sensible sentiment is corroborated by the WHO, “A demand for scientific proof is always a formula for inaction and delay and usually the first reaction of the guilty … in fact scientific proof has never been, is not and should not be the basis for political and legal action.” 7