Abstract
While Dieudonné has praised thoroughness of Leszczynski’s review of EHS studies, he was critical of the final conclusions. Leszczynski strongly disagrees with argumentation of Dieudonné that EHS issue is settled and that biomarker research is unnecessary because it is expensive and might produce false positives. Leszczynski’s opinion is that his review has demonstrated how very poor scientifically and inadequate statistically is the to-date executed research on EHS. Dieudonné’s approach of using such poor science to justify claim that EHS issue is settled and there is no causality link between EHS and EMF exposures, is completely unjustified and simply false.
-
Research funding: None declared.
-
Author contributions: Single author (Dariusz Leszczynski).
-
Competing interests: Author states no conflict of interest.
References
1. Dieudonné, M. Comments on the review of the scientific evidence on the individual sensitivity to electromagnetic fields (EHS) by Dariusz Leszczynski. Rev Environ Health 2023;38:395–7. https://doi.org/10.1515/reveh-2022-0002.Search in Google Scholar PubMed
2. Leszczynski, D. Review of the scientific evidence on the individual sensitivity to electromagnetic fields (EHS). Rev Environ Health 2022;37:423–50. https://doi.org/10.1515/reveh-2021-0038.Search in Google Scholar PubMed
3. Schuermann, D, Mevissen, M. Manmade electromagnetic fields and oxidative stress-biological effects and consequences for health. Int J Mol Sci 2021;22:3772. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms22073772.Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
© 2022 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
