Standard Method to Take Ambient RF Readings

I would take such claims quite seriously, if there would a clear difference in double blind tests. This also seams to be the situation in "high-end" audio enthusiasts that claim sound differences based on special loudspeaker or interconnection cables.

Regarding the question of pulsed RF vs. constant RF issue, there should be a difference between countries using pulsed (e.g. GSM in Europe) and other countries using constant amplitude signals (CDMA) for similar population sample in different countries.

On Fri, 02 May 2014 09:00:11 -0700 in sci.electronics.design, Jeff Liebermann wrote,

I wonder how he knew.

Oops. That should be "publish". Spehling cheqeur stykes aggen.

How who knew what? If you're referring to the reviewers suspicion that the exposure was uneven, my guess(tm) is that he knew that because he had read the preliminary study submitted for publication. Included is a description of the test setup and procedures. In my never humble opinion, the test chamber was too small, the RF absorbent material too thin, and feed antenna too directional. Had I been able to measure the field distribution inside, I probably would have found major hot spots and nulls caused by uncontrolled reflections. Extra credit for a metal pan of water inside the chamber. I had plenty of doubts about other aspects of the study, but kept my mouth shut because I could tell that they didn't want my input.

This might help:

Drivel: Many years ago in the 1960's, marijuana research was all the rage. The government was funding anyone that could prove that marijuana was dangerous. No effort was spared in manufacturing the required results. One memorable study used lab rats. The researchers were having difficulties obtaining controlled doses of THC through inhalation of smoke due to differences in metabolism between the rats. To save time, they simply dissolved the THC in alcohol and injected it directly into the rats stomachs. Soon, the rats exhibited signs of disorientation and erratic behavior. Some of them died prematurely. The researchers were ecstatic and published their preliminary results in the college newspaper. "Marijuana proven to kill rats" or something similar. It took a few weeks, but eventually a retraction was published. The effects were produced by alcohol intoxication, not marijuana. Oops.

On Wed, 07 May 2014 08:28:18 -0700 in sci.electronics.design, Jeff Liebermann wrote,

It just reminds me of Feynman's story:

"Another thing I understand better now is where the idea came from that cold affects the O-rings. It was General Kutyna who called me up and said, "I was working on my carburetor, and I was thinking: what is the effect of cold on the O-rings?" "Well, it turns out that one of NASA's own astronauts told him that there was information, somewhere in the works of NASA, that the O-rings had no resilience whatever at low temperatures -- and NASA wasn't saying anything about it. "But General Kutyna had the career of that astronaut to worry about, so the real question the General was thinking about while he was working on his carburetor was, "How can I get this information out without jeopardizing my astronaut friend?" His solution was to get the professor excited about it, and his plan worked perfectly."

-- Richard P. Feynman, "What do You Care What Other People Think?", 1988

Den onsdag den 7. maj 2014 17.28.18 UTC+2 skrev Jeff Liebermann:

There must have been some shady dealings going on since they went to such lengths to get marijuana banned, compared to other stimulants you can buy or drugs you can get from a doctor it seems relative benign

-Lasse