Seven studies were found which did report an association, while 24 could not find any association with electromagnetic fields. However, of the seven positive studies, two could not be replicated even by the original authors, three had serious methodological shortcomings, and the final two presented contradictory results. Since then, several more double-blind experiments have been published, each of which has suggested that people who report electromagnetic hypersensitivity are unable to detect the presence of electromagnetic fields and are as likely to report ill health following a sham exposure, as they are following exposure to genuine electromagnetic fields. [1]
This is the sort of thing that should have been mentioned in the article. Either through shoddy research or intentional omission the author included none of this and left it with two short paragraphs of dissent. The article gives the impression little work has been done on this issue.
Another example of shoddy science reporting in the media. sigh
