The provocation study methodology is itself highly suspect. It is certainly possible that there could be a physiological effect due to EM fluxes that was not perceivable by the victim. We are all familiar with poisons that cause severe damage in concentrations which cannot be tasted by the victim, in fact, their presence cannot even be detected except by sophisticated chemical analyses. Also, it is also conceivable that the effects of this EM field might not be immediately or completely toxic, but could increase the risk slightly in the future. I smoked for years and never got cancer, but I am well aware that my risks of developing cancer at some time in the future are higher than for people who never smoked. It doesn't mean I will get sick, or they won't, but there is a shift in the statistics.

We tend to think of poisons as having some threshold, some level below which they are harmless. I know now opinion has changed on this, ionizing radiation is now thought to have deleterious effects even at minute levels, and that even natural "background" exposures present in nature probably do slightly increase the possibility of cancers in the future. All it takes is ONE stray gamma ray to knock out a chemical bond in a DNA strand and initiate a deadly mutation. Just because something exists in nature doesn't mean it has to be harmless.

Toxicologists usually assess the toxicity of a substance by dosing test subjects (animals) with massive doses of the poison and noting the percentage of resulting deaths. They then lower the dosage and note the decreasing levels of mortality. There comes a point when the mortality vanishes, they simply can't kill enough lab rats to assess the probability of risk. But they CAN extrapolate the curve they've been plotting to make estimates of the toxicity at extremely low exposures. This approach is certainly suspect, but it really is all we have.

I personally don't believe EM radiation is dangerous. The wattages involved are so tiny that it is hard to come up with any potential mechanism to explain how it could possibly cause tissue damage. But neither can it be ruled out, either. Maybe there is a mechanism, up to now unidentified, that might be operating. After all, the nervous system is a sensitive electrochemical system, if our crude radio receivers can pick up and decipher a signal, perhaps our brains can be affected too. And anything affecting the neurological system can easily cause accidental changes in the rest of the organism.

Remember, we originally thought DDT was harmless to mammals because it only affected the nervous systems of insects. We could "drink a glass of it" and not get sick. But we learned that even in minute quantities DDT was potentially lethal to humans and birds for different reasons that had nothing to do with its effect on mammalian and avian nervous systems. These people may be crackpots but they are right about one thing, whenever you introduce anything into nature that wasn't there before, that nothing has evolved a defense for, you are taking a risk, perhaps a tiny one, but a risk nonetheless. The explosion in the use of industrial chemicals is almost certainly related to the cancer epidemic. Most of our synthetic compounds are certainly harmless, but it is difficult to believe they all are. And if the deleterious effect is subtle and complex, delayed or intermittent, we may not even realize it is killing us.

And when you factor in how benign substances can interact synergistically in combination with others, and how natural cycles and biological processes can disperse and concentrate chemicals, and how perfectly safe compounds can break down or interact catalytically with others to form potential dangers; perhaps we should be a bit more careful about just what we are releasing into the biosphere. We really don't know what the hell we're doing.