GABRIEL Millar (‘Radiation roulette’, letters July 1) fails to address the point that she totally misrepresents the state of scientific evidence regarding the risks of electromagnetic radiation.
Whilst she is free to believe whatever she wants, the evidence as a whole does not support her.
Nor am I swayed by her citing in support a doctor representing the British Society for Ecological Medicine, a body which includes among its members a disproportionate number of specialists in such dubious but profitable fields as homeopathy, reflexology, allergy therapy, acupuncture etc.
She is of course correct that vested interests are involved but that is true of both sides of the debate – a number of the organisations she mentioned as reporting on the supposed dangers of EMR also happen to sell devices purporting to mitigate those dangers.
It’s interesting that some are ready to accept the scientific evidence for climate change but reject it in areas such as this, or against quack medicine such as homeopathy.
Science is good if it supports your prejudice against technology but not to be trusted otherwise.
Jim Watson
Selsley
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article