The letter by Drs de Vocht and Burstyn criticizing my paper, Evidence that dirty electricity is causing the worldwide epidemics of obesity and diabetes, is full of inaccuracies. They claim. “… that there is at present no scientifically valid peer-reviewed data indicating that HFVT are associated with increased risks of diabetes and other conditions cited by Dr Milham (asthma, ADHD, cancer)”. Dr de Vocht should remember: A New Electromagnetic Exposure Metric: High Frequency Voltage Transients Associated With Increased Cancer Incidence in Teachers in a California School by me and Lloyd Morgan, to which he devoted a review article. I cited two papers by D.K. Li who showed that fetal intra-uterine exposure to power frequency magnetic fields was associated with asthma and obesity in the children. In my experience, high magnetic fields are a surrogate for dirty electricity. The cited Amish studies for a number of diseases are valid because they remove house wiring, shun electricity, and have minimal exposure to dirty electricity, explaining the very low incidence of cancer, cardiovascular diseases, diabetes and suicide in their population. The diabetes study by Havas was also peer reviewed.
They also write, “… it is also very unlikely that any single exposure would cause such a wide range of health effects”. Chronic stress caused by dirty electricity can explain all our diseases of civilization.
The fact that obesity is culturally admired in some parts of Pacific Oceania cannot explain why Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Jordan have high-obesity rates. I was unaware that people on tropical islands were obese and diabetic because they stayed indoors because of, “… a high rate of violence and crime that reduces the opportunity for outdoor activity”. Although there were major dietary changes in Pacific Oceania starting in World War 2, diabetes was unheard of there until the 1960s.
Instead of parodying my work, I suggest these authors should do studies to confirm or refute the dirty electricity connection to disease.
Notice of Correction:
The title of this letter to the editor has been changed since the original online publication date of November 27, 2013.