When an experiment is replicated and different results are observed, there is no general rule by
which it can be decided whether the first or the second replicate (or both or neither) are the true
descriptions of nature. In each case an analysis must be made of the details of the studies and their
relation to other studies. Only in this manner can it be decided whether an UV likely was present (in
which case both experiments would correctly describe nature, but under different circumstances), or
whether a Type I or Type II error was made in one of the replicates.
Summary
The reports described in this chapter involve the effects of EMF on metabolism, growth, and
reproduction. When they are considered in conjunction with the previous three chapters, it becomes
clear that there is no biological function which can be said to be impervious to nonthermal EMFs-they
are a fundamental and pervasive factor in the biology of every living organism. The nature, extent, and
physiological significance of the effects to be expected in different organisms, and their dependence on
the spectral characteristics of the field remain, for the most part, to be determined by future studies. We
have no doubt that some of the reports described here are erroneous in the sense that some investigators
have reported effects that ultimately will be found to be artifacts or statistical anomalies. But this is true
with regard to every area of biological experimentation-the mathematical precision of the physical
sciences is simply unattainable. It means only that the details regarding the biological effects of specific
EMFS have not been established with certainty, and it does not detract form the fundamental point that
the nonthermal EMF is a physiologically active agent. The scope of the observed effects, and some of
ELECTROMAGNETISM & LIFE - 117