..................................................................................................................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Dr. Magda Havas
Dr. Magda Havas of Trent University, Ontario Canada has been one of the leading proponents of the health effect of EMF. She has done a number of flawed studies on EHS (electrohypersensitivity). She has a web site to promote herself and her alarmist views. She has been an activist on a number of fronts such as advising groups opposed to the installation of cell towers and WiFi networks. She has also appeared on a number of TV programs and other media promoting concerns about EMF. She has testified before a committee of Canadian members of parliament.
She has conducted a number of "studies" on the supposed effects of "dirty electricity" that she claims support her concerns. We will closely examine a number of her papers more closely, and show that that they are deeply flawed. It is interesting to note that Havas has co-authored some of her papers with David Stetzer who manufactures and markets the "Graham-Stetzer filters" used in these studies. These highly questionable studies are being used as a sales pitch for the filters on the web sites of a number of resellers. See the section on Power Line Filters our page on EHS product scams for more information about these filters.
Several critiques of papers published by Dr. Havas appear on this page and on the next several pages. The first article is a public statement affirming the safety of WiFi in schools issued by 6 members of the physics and astronomy department at Trent University. This is the same university where Dr. Havas is based. Following this are a number of articles that critique the poor methods used in a number of scientific papers published by Havas.
Dr. Magda Havas of Trent University, Ontario Canada has been one of the leading proponents of the health effect of EMF. She has done a number of flawed studies on EHS (electrohypersensitivity). She has a web site to promote herself and her alarmist views. She has been an activist on a number of fronts such as advising groups opposed to the installation of cell towers and WiFi networks. She has also appeared on a number of TV programs and other media promoting concerns about EMF. She has testified before a committee of Canadian members of parliament.
She has conducted a number of "studies" on the supposed effects of "dirty electricity" that she claims support her concerns. We will closely examine a number of her papers more closely, and show that that they are deeply flawed. It is interesting to note that Havas has co-authored some of her papers with David Stetzer who manufactures and markets the "Graham-Stetzer filters" used in these studies. These highly questionable studies are being used as a sales pitch for the filters on the web sites of a number of resellers. See the section on Power Line Filters our page on EHS product scams for more information about these filters.
Several critiques of papers published by Dr. Havas appear on this page and on the next several pages. The first article is a public statement affirming the safety of WiFi in schools issued by 6 members of the physics and astronomy department at Trent University. This is the same university where Dr. Havas is based. Following this are a number of articles that critique the poor methods used in a number of scientific papers published by Havas.
Physicists at Trent University see no danger in WiFi
A group of 6 scientists from the physics and astronomy department at Trent University have issued a public statement affirming the safety of WiFi in schools. This development is especially significant because these scientists work at the same university as Dr. Magda Havas. They indicate that: "On the issue of health effects of radio frequency waves, a large body of evidence now exists, and the international consensus is described in the references listed here. Based on these considerations, we do not believe that electromagnetic waves associated with WiFi in schools pose a health risk to children or teachers." One particularly good reference they have included is a report published by the Ontario Agency for Health: Wireless Technology and Health Outcomes. They thus affirm (without directly naming her) that the alarmist views of Dr. Havas to not conform to the mainstream scientific consensus.
A group of 6 scientists from the physics and astronomy department at Trent University have issued a public statement affirming the safety of WiFi in schools. This development is especially significant because these scientists work at the same university as Dr. Magda Havas. They indicate that: "On the issue of health effects of radio frequency waves, a large body of evidence now exists, and the international consensus is described in the references listed here. Based on these considerations, we do not believe that electromagnetic waves associated with WiFi in schools pose a health risk to children or teachers." One particularly good reference they have included is a report published by the Ontario Agency for Health: Wireless Technology and Health Outcomes. They thus affirm (without directly naming her) that the alarmist views of Dr. Havas to not conform to the mainstream scientific consensus.
Dirty Electricity Elevates Blood Sugar Among Electrically Sensitive Diabetics and May Explain Brittle Diabetes
With the collaboration of Dr. Howard Trottier professor of physics at Simon Fraser University
In this paper Havas studies 4 individuals suffering from diabetes. Here she tries to link their insulin levels to "exposure" to "dirty electricity. The biggest problem with this "study" is that it is entirely anecdotal. Both the patient and the experimenter knew when the GS filters were installed. We asked one of own scientist friends, who suffers from Type I juvenile diabetes, to read and comment on this "study". The following are his comments.
The most egregious problems with this "study" are the ones mentioned above, which are that it is an incredibly small population, which self-reports, and without double-blind controls.
These issues are exacerbated by the fact that this tiny group mixes diabetics of Types I and II, which are essentially different diseases, with different treatment regimes, and since this includes a newly diagnosed Type I juvenile diabetic, who was monitored during only the first month following diagnosis!
I'll comment in detail on just one case that of the newly diagnosed 12-year old Type I diabetic. However, some of the same systematic issues that I identify here (such as a lack of control or reporting of precise caloric intake, exercise levels, and the timing and type of insulin dosage levels) apply to the other cases.
As a diabetic myself, it strikes me as particularly ill-founded to try to claim a causal relation from among the multitude of variables that would affect the condition of a newly diagnosed insulin-dependent diabetic. As but one example, in Fig. 3 she plots the mean daily glucose level versus the *combined* daily dose of two different insulin's. These two insulin's serve totally different functions (H is short acting and is taken just before meals, while N is taken in my case just once a day, to control the basal sugar level throughout the day). Trying to balance these two insulin's is very tricky, especially for a new (not to mention very young) diabetic. Dosage changes in the two types of insulin can lead to very different effects. For example, an over-dose of the "N" long-acting type could lead to low blood sugars over night of the "H" type would lead to a low blood sugar just after the meal (which one might not even measure, since the symptoms can be quite obvious under the circumstances).
Note for example that the mean daily glucose reading improved significantly over the first week or two of treatment, *before* the GS filters were installed. This is likely due to the patient and his family learning how to manage the newly diagnosed condition, which would include adjusting both the overall dose and the relative amounts of these two different insulin types.
Similarly, the reduction in total dosage following the installation of the GS filters cannot demonstrate a causal relation during such an early period following diagnosis. It is for example entirely possible that the family over-compensated for one or the otherinsulin types because of the high blood sugars during the initial period, leading to the need to reduce the dosage once a better balance between the two insulin's was achieved. I have also observed many times in my own treatment that my total dosage changes significantly in response to external events, such as stress, or a change in physical activity, etc. For times of great stress or activity, my total dosage can as much as double.
My guess is that the changes in dosage level are simply related to the many factors that come into play during the period immediately following diagnosis. Of the many other factors, not documented here, are the patient's caloric intake and physical activity levels, as well as what feedback the family was receiving from a physician or nutritionist.
One last comment: At the bottom of page 140 of the article, Havas refers to a well-known "honeymoon period" in which a diabetic's blood sugar improves over a generally short-term period following diagnosis. She argues that this cannot explain why the sister, a long-term diabetic, had improved sugar levels following the introduction of the GS filter. Besides the fact that this data is not presented, one might take note of the fact that psychological factors, and their physiological feedback (such as the excitement generated by the promise of a "miracle cure"), can also stimulate a "honeymoon period" with short-term changes in blood sugar.
With the collaboration of Dr. Howard Trottier professor of physics at Simon Fraser University
In this paper Havas studies 4 individuals suffering from diabetes. Here she tries to link their insulin levels to "exposure" to "dirty electricity. The biggest problem with this "study" is that it is entirely anecdotal. Both the patient and the experimenter knew when the GS filters were installed. We asked one of own scientist friends, who suffers from Type I juvenile diabetes, to read and comment on this "study". The following are his comments.
The most egregious problems with this "study" are the ones mentioned above, which are that it is an incredibly small population, which self-reports, and without double-blind controls.
These issues are exacerbated by the fact that this tiny group mixes diabetics of Types I and II, which are essentially different diseases, with different treatment regimes, and since this includes a newly diagnosed Type I juvenile diabetic, who was monitored during only the first month following diagnosis!
I'll comment in detail on just one case that of the newly diagnosed 12-year old Type I diabetic. However, some of the same systematic issues that I identify here (such as a lack of control or reporting of precise caloric intake, exercise levels, and the timing and type of insulin dosage levels) apply to the other cases.
As a diabetic myself, it strikes me as particularly ill-founded to try to claim a causal relation from among the multitude of variables that would affect the condition of a newly diagnosed insulin-dependent diabetic. As but one example, in Fig. 3 she plots the mean daily glucose level versus the *combined* daily dose of two different insulin's. These two insulin's serve totally different functions (H is short acting and is taken just before meals, while N is taken in my case just once a day, to control the basal sugar level throughout the day). Trying to balance these two insulin's is very tricky, especially for a new (not to mention very young) diabetic. Dosage changes in the two types of insulin can lead to very different effects. For example, an over-dose of the "N" long-acting type could lead to low blood sugars over night of the "H" type would lead to a low blood sugar just after the meal (which one might not even measure, since the symptoms can be quite obvious under the circumstances).
Note for example that the mean daily glucose reading improved significantly over the first week or two of treatment, *before* the GS filters were installed. This is likely due to the patient and his family learning how to manage the newly diagnosed condition, which would include adjusting both the overall dose and the relative amounts of these two different insulin types.
Similarly, the reduction in total dosage following the installation of the GS filters cannot demonstrate a causal relation during such an early period following diagnosis. It is for example entirely possible that the family over-compensated for one or the otherinsulin types because of the high blood sugars during the initial period, leading to the need to reduce the dosage once a better balance between the two insulin's was achieved. I have also observed many times in my own treatment that my total dosage changes significantly in response to external events, such as stress, or a change in physical activity, etc. For times of great stress or activity, my total dosage can as much as double.
My guess is that the changes in dosage level are simply related to the many factors that come into play during the period immediately following diagnosis. Of the many other factors, not documented here, are the patient's caloric intake and physical activity levels, as well as what feedback the family was receiving from a physician or nutritionist.
One last comment: At the bottom of page 140 of the article, Havas refers to a well-known "honeymoon period" in which a diabetic's blood sugar improves over a generally short-term period following diagnosis. She argues that this cannot explain why the sister, a long-term diabetic, had improved sugar levels following the introduction of the GS filter. Besides the fact that this data is not presented, one might take note of the fact that psychological factors, and their physiological feedback (such as the excitement generated by the promise of a "miracle cure"), can also stimulate a "honeymoon period" with short-term changes in blood sugar.
More Flawed Havas EHS Studies:
Barrie Ontario: WiFi in Schools OK
Barrie Ontario: WiFi in Schools OK
Except where noted all images on this web site are taken from the Wikipedia commons
All trademarks are the property of their respective owners Copyright 2009 EMF & Health
All trademarks are the property of their respective owners Copyright 2009 EMF & Health