Sorry for the necro posting. I wanted to voice my impressions of the article, and the people who have posted about it.
I enjoyed this article for several reasons. The primary reason is that it was very scientific, and unbiased (anyone who says otherwise needs to check the logical conventions regarding science and impartial reasoning.)
There is no need to give voice to an opposing claim if you refute the fundamental grounds upon which it operates. It is a formality used in scientific journals for ease of reference, rather than an actual necessity. The only time both sides of an issue are ever needed are in ethical argument. Science is guessing what is, by find out what is not. In science, I can say "I did this and this happened" and attempt to find out when "this" will happen, and when it won't. If "this" doesn't happen when I do "that" under 500 different circumstances, I can safely say there are 500 different situations when "this" is not caused by "that." Kobok adequately gave us his reasons why psi is not EMR. Even if psi met two out of three of those qualifications, it would still be disqualified as EMR, because EMR follows a very rigid definition. As elecromagnetic frequency, it is subject to interference from other electromagnetism sources. As radiation, it needs a definitive origin and a definitive termination point. Because psi does not have a definitive origin and no definitive termination point, it can't be radiation of any type. It takes more evidence to justify re-writing the definition of an accepted system than it does to say "we don't know what it is, but here's a tentative hypothesis"
Until I had read this article, I was an avid proponent of the EMR argument; though thinking in retrospect, my experiments regarding this could have been subject to experimental contamination merely on the grounds that If one "charges" a conducive object expecting to see an increase in electrical resistance, you will see an increase in resistance because psi tends to take on patterns readily.
I'll give this article 5 stars, mainly because one can have no opinions on fact (which kobok laid out) and that it was very well thought out and had very cogent arguments.