could not set sessions vars
239 /home/abuco/ABU_SHOP/WWW_LIB/functions/shopping/std_cart.php


Close X
Please select a star rating, add your review and submit.
*Your Name
*Your Email
*Paasword
Select a Star Rating
Add Your Comments
If you find any of the following information helpful, please link to this article using of the following code:
<a href="http://radiationrefuge.com/Letter-to-the-Illawarra-Mercury-from-Steve-Weller-B-Sc-Monash-news_1_1_4_1_75" title="Radiation Refuge">Radiation Refuge</a>
Author: ANONYMOUS
Visitors Rating:  
Number Reviews: 1
Read Reviews Write a Review

Letter to the Illawarra Mercury from Steve Weller B.Sc. Monash

Letter to the Illawarra Mercury from Steve Weller B.Sc. Monash

Letter to the Illawarra Mercury from Steve Weller B.Sc. Monash.


Dear Editor of the Illawarra Mercury, I recently read an article written by Lisa Wachsmuth entitled “does wireless technology make us sick? I would appreciate it if my response below could be included in the letter to the editor/opinion section of your paper.

Being an person who suffers headaches, insomnia, head pressure and numbness in the face when I use wireless devices I am extremely concerned that the upcoming study being performed at Wollongong University by Professor Croft and his team is unlikely to be of value to those who suffer because of some major deficiencies in the study design. A number of sufferers including myself worked closely with Professor Croft and his team to provide advice on establishing a robust testing protocol, one that we believed would help establish whether Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity (EHS), also referred to as microwave sickness, is linked to exposure to manmade wireless frequencies emitted from WiFi, mobile phones and cell towers. To our dismay and frustration none of our suggestions were adopted. Personally, I believe the study design has been purposely constructed to avoid showing an association with the intent to support a psychological cause. I wrote an open letter over two months ago challenging Professor Croft in relation to what I saw as obvious test protocol deficiencies but a response has not been forthcoming. The main issues with the study are that it contains no biological tests, is based purely on subjective responses that can be influenced by a number of confounders, uses a provocation device that emits a signal that is not found in the real world and is seriously constrained with respect to timeframes for expected recovery – there can be a washout period where effects can linger for hours even days after an exposure that may influence subsequent sham signal tests. As I am impacted by these technologies I cannot in good conscience recommend people who suffer from this functional impairment to undertake the test in its current form.

Please find attached my open letter to Professor Croft that outlines my concerns in more detail.

Best Regards,
Steve Weller B.Sc. Monash