Does Short-Term Exposure to Mobile Phone Base Station Signals Increase Symptoms in Individuals Who Report Sensitivity to Electromagnetic Fields? A Double-Blind Randomized Provocation Study

BACKGROUND: Individuals with idiopathic environmental illness with attribution to electromagnetic fields (IEI-EMF) believe they suffer negative health effects when exposed to electromagnetic fields from everyday objects such as mobile phone base stations. OBJECTIVES: This study used both open provocation and double-blind tests to determine if sensitive and control individuals experience more negative health effects when exposed to base station-like signals compared with sham. METHODS: Fifty-six self-reported sensitive and 120 control participants were tested in an open provocation test. Of these, 12 sensitive and 6 controls withdrew after the first session. The remainder completed a series of double-blind tests. Subjective measures of well-being and symptoms as well as physiological measures of blood volume pulse, heart rate, and skin conductance were obtained. RESULTS: During the open provocation, sensitive individuals reported lower levels of well-being in both the global system for mobile communication (GSM) and universal mobile telecommunications system (UMTS) compared with sham exposure, whereas controls reported more symptoms during the UMTS exposure. During double-blind tests the GSM signal did not have any effect on either group. Sensitive participants did report elevated levels of arousal during the UMTS condition, whereas the number or severity of symptoms experienced did not increase. Physiological measures did not differ across the three exposure conditions for either group. CONCLUSIONS: Short-term exposure to a typical GSM base station-like signal did not affect well-being or physiological functions in sensitive or control individuals. Sensitive individuals reported elevated levels of arousal when exposed to a UMTS signal. Further analysis, however, indicated that this difference was likely to be due to the effect of order of exposure rather than the exposure itself

The Impact of Mercenaries and Private Military and Security Companies on Civil War Severity between 1946 and 2002

Research has long abandoned the view that only states wage war. On the contrary, civil war research has produced an impressive body of literature on violent non-state actors. Still, a particular group of actors—mercenaries—has been widely neglected so far, although they have participated in numerous conflicts in the second half of the twentieth century. Whether their presence aggravated or improved the situation is a matter of dispute. Some believe that the additional military capabilities provided by mercenaries help to end civil wars quickly without increased bloodshed, while others deem mercenaries greedy and bloodthirsty combatants who contribute to making civil wars more brutal, while a third opinion differentiates between different types of mercenaries. This article tests the impact of mercenaries on civil war severity. The evidence indicates that the presence of both mercenaries and private military and security contractors increases its severity

Physician Surveys to Assess Customary Care in Medical Malpractice Cases

OBJECTIVE: Physician experts hired and prepared by the litigants provide most information on standard of care for medical malpractice cases. Since this information may not be objective or accurate, we examined the feasibility and potential value of surveying community physicians to assess standard of care. DESIGN: Seven physician surveys of mutually exclusive groups of randomly selected physicians. SETTING: Iowa. PARTICIPANTS: Community and academic primary care physicians and relevant specialists. INTERVENTIONS: Included in each survey was a case vignette of a primary care malpractice case and key quotes from medical experts on each side of the case. Surveyed physicians were asked whether the patient should have been referred to a specialist for additional evaluation. The 7 case vignettes included 3 closed medical malpractice cases, 3 modifications of these cases, and 1 active case. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Sixty-three percent of 350 community primary care physicians and 51% of 216 community specialists completed the questionnaire. For 3 closed cases, 47%, 78%, and 88% of primary care physician respondents reported that they would have made a different referral decision than the defendant. Referral percentages were minimally affected by modifying patient outcome but substantially changed by modifying patient presentation. Most physicians, even those whose referral decisions were unusual, assumed that other physicians would make similar referral decisions. For each case, at least 65% of the primary care physicians disagreed with the testimony of one of the expert witnesses. In the active case, the response rate was high (71%), and the respondents did not withhold criticism of the defendant doctor. CONCLUSIONS: Randomly selected peer physicians are willing to participate in surveys of medical malpractice cases. The surveys can be used to construct the distribution of physician self-reported practice relevant to a particular malpractice case. This distribution may provide more information about customary practice or standard of care than the opinion of a single physician expert