logo

Tobacco science and the art of spin

  • Home
  •  
  • Tobacco science and the art of spin
    • 30 APR 17

    Cell Phones Exceed Canada’s Radiation Exposure Limits – CBC Investigation

    Excerpt

    As Commonly Used, Cell Phones Exceed Canada’s Radiation Exposure Limits – CBC Investigation
    Canadians Await Government Action As Cancer Connections Strengthen

    March 31, 2017

    For Immediate Release

    Ottawa – A CBC investigation revealed that cell phones exceed maximum permitted exposures during normal use, and expose Canadians to three to four times more radiofrequency energy than measured during testing per regulations. Since 81% of Canadians are unaware of fine print warnings in the phone or manual, they naturally hold cell phones against ears and carry phones in pockets. Few people distance wireless devices from the body by at least 5 to 20 mm for phones and 20+ cm for tablets.

    In response to CBC, the federal government alleges that phones are still “safe” when exposure standards are exceeded….SNIP

    Read more →
    • 29 APR 17

    Dariusz Leszczynski: Where science and big money collide…

    From the blog: Between a Rock and a Hard place

    April 28, 2017
    Excerpt

    Where science and big money collide, we enter a strange “twilight zone” of science politics, where various methods are applied to neutralize “inconvenient” science.

    One of the examples of such collision between science and big money is presented in, as always, a very good story from Louis Slesin: ‘Peer Review in the Raw’. From his long-time perspective as Editor of the ‘Microwave News’ Louis is showing, yet again, that science and politics in EMF are a “toxic mix” for science.

    The story of Henry Lai and N.P. Singh reminded me of my first publication in EMF arena.

    In 2002 my research group published article that made worldwide headlines: ‘Non-thermal activation of the hsp27/p38MAPK stress pathway by mobile phone radiation in human endothelial cells: molecular mechanism for cancer- and blood-brain barrier-related effects.’ by Leszczynski D, Joenväärä S, Reivinen J, Kuokka R; Differentiation. 2002 May; 70(2-3):120-9…. SNIP

    Read more →
    • 28 APR 17

    Important reading: Peer Review in the Raw (Microwave News)

    From Louis Slesin, Microwave News

    This story was 20 years in the making.

    If you want to know what it has been like to do research on the potential health effects of cell phone radiation, please read this story. I hope it will change the way you think about the peer review process and the power of entrenched interests to manipulate what gets published in the scientific literature –and, ultimately, shape public opinion.

    This story should also help you understand how EMF/EMR research has come to be falsely portrayed as junk science. SNIP

    Read more →
    • 01 MAR 17

    Science Propaganda wars (The Ecologist)

    Propaganda wars: ‘pro-science’ GMO, chemicals boosters funded by climate change deniers

    Stacy Malkan

    28th February 2017

    Excerpt

    They promote GMOs, defend toxic chemicals, and attack people who raise concerns about those products as ‘anti-science’. But behind the slick ‘astroturf’ PR fronts lurk some very dubious funders: the same arch-conservative foundations that finance climate science denial. Stacy Malkan exposes the key players in the agribusiness and chemical industry propaganda wars. SNIP

    Read more →
    • 17 FEB 17

    Monash University study shows how close we like to keep our mobile phones (and Rodney Croft’s dismissive spin)

    Don’s comment:

    The the Herald Sun article below we see how “spin” can be used to discount the findings of a study. Ignoring the IARC findings and a host of other research. Rodney Croft gets the final say in the article with the disingenuous statement: “there was no scientific evidence showing a link between mobile phone use and cancers”.

    From the Herald Sun by Lucie van den Berg,
    February 16, 2017 12:00am

    Excerpt:

    MOBILE phones are our constant companions, but new research reveals how close we actually like to keep our prized possessions. The Monash University study into the storage habits of young women found 15 per cent of woman had even carried their smartphone tucked into their bra or sport’s top.In an online questionnaire, almost 200 Melbourne women aged 15-40 were asked about where they carried their phone and their perception of potential health risks…

    Read more →
    • 10 JAN 17

    Paolo Boffetta, Italian Epidemiologist, Distorts Power Line Risks

    From Louis Slesin, Microwave News

    Excerpt:

    Facts don’t seem to mean much anymore. We live in a “post-truth” time. As 2017 opened for business, a stark example of the new reality came to our attention courtesy of Paolo Boffetta, an Italian epidemiologist now at Mount Sinai School of Medicine in New York City.

    In an interview with Fox News, Boffetta said that the link between power lines and childhood leukemia had been debunked. In response to a question as to whether it was safe for a pregnant woman to live next to “huge power lines,” Boffetta advised that there was no reason for concern.

    Boffetta has lost his truth compass…..SNIP

    Read more →
    • 06 DEC 16

    New Book Dismisses Cell Phone Cancer Risks

    From Microwave News:

    An epidemiologist at the Albert Einstein College of Medicine in New York City has written a new book that, according to the publisher, offers a “much-needed antidote to what has been called ‘an epidemic of false claims’.” One of these is that cell phones might cause brain cancer.

    What purports to be common sense advice about how to evaluate health risks is anything but. It’s nothing more than industry pseudoscience.

    The public deserves better –so does Albert Einstein.

    Read our review of this bad little book, with the misleading title, Getting Risk Right.
    SNIP

    Read more →
    • 29 NOV 16

    Has the WHO EMF Project been hijacked by ICNIRP?

    From Lennart Hardell’s blog:

    Has the WHO EMF Project been hijacked by ICNIRP?

    Recently the following appeal has been posted at http://olgasheean.com/who-emf/ .
    Sign this VOTE of NO CONFIDENCE in WHO’s EMF Project ….SNIP

    [Commentary from Lennart Hardell and Michael Carlberg]

    IARC as part of WHO evaluated radiofrequency (RF) radiation in May 2011 and concluded it to be a possible human carcinogen, Group 2B. However, in a fact sheet issued by WHO in June 2011 shortly after the IARC decision it was stated that ‘To date, no adverse health effects have been established as being caused by mobile phone use’.

    WHO has still not acknowledged health risks form RF radiation: ‘No major public health risks have emerged from several decades of EMF research, but uncertainties remain’.

    WHO plans to publish in 2017 an Environmental Health Criteria Monograph on RF radiation. It has been open for comments and parts of our letter to WHO is shown below: SNIP

    Read more →
    • 25 NOV 16

    CORPORATE TIES THAT BIND: An Examination of Corporate Manipulation and Vested Interest in Public Health

    This forthcoming book (February 2017) is timely reading as we are now seeing a well-orchestrated tactic by various industry front groups and their “fellow travelers” to create a false scientific consensus in an effort to kill-off controversial health and environmental issues which threaten various industries.

    SNIP

    Read more →
    • 12 OCT 16

    ACEBR’s annual spin: Science and Wireless 2016

    The Australian Centre for Electromagnetic Bioeffects Research (ACEBR) will be hosting Science and Wireless 2016 at RMIT University this November.

    22 Nov 2016
    Time: 04:00 PM-07:00 PM

    The focus of this year’s event will be a keynote presentation on ‘Radiofrequency radiation applications in treatment of Alzheimer’s disease’ followed by a brief review of ICNIRP exposure guidelines and 5G standards.

    A facilitated Q&A panel discussion with the ACEBR Chief Investigators and guest presenters will provide opportunities for open discussion on the topics, followed by informal conversations during the poster session over drinks and light snacks. SNIP……

    Read more →
    • 14 JUN 16

    The WHO’s EHC for RF and the EC on endocrine-disrupting chemicals: will industry win the day?

    Dariusz Leszczynski reports in his blog Between a Rock and A Hard Place the current status of the WHO’s next Environmental Health Criteria (EHC) for telecommunications frequencies (RF/MW). This criteria, once written and ratified, will form the basis for RF/MW regulations for years to come – so for the Telco industry a lot is riding on the outcome. I recommend a read of Leszczynski’s WHO analysis then consider the scandal unfolding with the European Commissions criteria for identifying and regulating endocrine-disrupting chemicals – a huge concern for the chemical industry.

    Will industry influence rule the day for both?
    Read on….

    Read more →
    • 11 MAY 16

    ICNIRP’s meeting at Capetown, South Africa

    Excerpt

    Press release issued by the Electromagnetic Radiation Research Foundation of South Africa.
    https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/mobilfunk_newsletter/0VYr4Y1ScS8
    As the world’s radiation protection agency meets in Cape Town, scientists call for the retraction of a study from a top industry researcher claiming that children are not at higher risk from mobile phones

    May 9, 2016

    The International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) is a self-appointed body that sets the safety guidelines used by the World Health Organisation to cover all radiation from electrical and electronic apparatus, including power lines, smartphones, wifi, and telecoms masts.
    SNIP

    Read more →
    • 10 MAY 16

    Dariusz Leszczynski on Simon Chapman’s mobile phone ‘all-clear study.

    Excerpt

    From Dariusz Leszczynski’s blog Between A Rock and A Hard Place.

    May 10, 2016
    EXCERPT

    Professor Simon Chapman responds…
    Gallery
    Posted on May 10, 2016

    Recent epidemiological study from Australia, on cell phones and brain cancer, made headline news: Chapman S, Azizi L, Luo Q, Sitas F. Has the incidence of brain cancer risen in Australia since the introduction of mobile phones 29 years ago? Cancer Epidemiology, 2016 May 4.

    Reason for this global interest is simple, the authors claim to have proven that cell phones do not cause brain cancer and the issue should be put to rest. The study analyzed the 29 year history of cell phone use in Australia and compared it with the numbers of brain cancer reported to cancer registry.

    However, I think the authors greatly overstated significance of their results leading to misinformation of the readers and the general public at large. SNIP

    Read more →
    • 09 APR 16

    More on ICNIRP from Dariusz Lesczcynski

    As written by DL on Between A Rock and A Hard Place on April 8, 2016

    Is ICNIRP reliable enough to dictate meaning of science to the governmental risk regulators?

    Excerpt

    This post is a follow up to my posts published on April 4 and April 5.

    *****

    In my two last blog posts, last two blog posts ‘ICNIRP did it again…’ and ‘Mike Repacholi responds to ICNIRP did it again…’, I presented several reasons why the current modus operandi of ICNIRP is prone to provide unreliable and skewed evaluation of the scientific evidence on EMF and health.

    I was strongly opposed by Mike Repacholi, Chairman Emeritus of the ICNIRP, scientist who is responsible for the “birth” of this organization.

    In my opinion the major problems of ICNIRP are: SNIP

    Read more →
    • 06 APR 16

    Mike Repacholi responds to “ICNIRP did it again…” (recommended reading!)

    My comment to the below blog from Dariusz Lesczcynski:

    Mike Repacholi’s response to Dariusz Lesczcynski’s blog posting on ICNIRP is clear evidence of the international influence that Dariusz’s blog is having. Repacholi does not like criticism of the creature (ICNIRP) he created in order to maintain the disingenuous paradigm that the only hazardous biological effect of radiofrequency/microwave EMR is thermal. I note that Repacholi states that “ICNIRP Main Commission members are selected for their scientific integrity, no industry conflict of interest, range of expertise to cover all scientific disciplines to review EMF research, as well as excellent and reliable scientific publications themselves.” The current commission members are here: http://www.icnirp.org/en/activities/news/news-article/membership-2016-2020.html

    Repacholi’s definition of “scientific integrity” means a firm adherence to ICNIRP’s orthodoxy as well as a viewpoint that all the claimed health effects of exposure are psychosomatic, a chant which ICNIRP Main Commission member Rodney Croft knows all too well. As for “no industry conflict of interest”, perhaps Repacholi hopes that if he repeats that falsehood often enough it somehow transmogrifies into being true.
    SNIP

    Read more →
    • 11 MAR 16

    Amateurish radiation protection

    This posting is not about the Australian Radiation Protection & Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA) nor the Australian Centre for Electromagnetic Bioeffects Research (ACEBR) but it could well be considering the consistent spin inherent in their information and advice…..
    Don

    The following is from Dariusz Leszczynski’s blog; Between a Rock and a Hard Place:

    Säteilyturvakeskus (STUK) in Finland: Amateurish radiation protection

    Excerpt:

    In the past, on several occasions, I wrote about the amateurish conduct of STUK experts, those responsible for protecting Finns from the dangers of radiation, any radiation. Links to these posts are here:

    STUK in Finland: How trustworthy is information on smart phones and… nuclear power plants…
    August 10, 2015 – Finland’s STUK is hiding important radiation exposure information from the general public, the Government and the Parliament. What else is being hidden by the arbitrary decisions of STUK staff? How comprehensive and trustworthy is the information we, the general public, … SNIP

    Untruthful statement from Director General of Finland’s STUK: Scientific arrogance or incompetence?
    April 20, 2015 – On June 18, 2014, was posted BRHP blog “STUK in Finland misinforms the Government, Parliamentarians and the general public”. In this posts I criticized STUK for providing false information on radiation exposures caused by the ‘smart’ phones: “The experts form … SNIP
    STUK in Finland misinforms the Government, Parliamentarians and the general public

    SNIP

    Read more →
    • 26 FEB 16

    The Dominant Media … and the Illusion of Consensus

    The following article appeared in Truthout on 25 February, although it primarily ideals with the bizarre presidential circus currently underway in America, the topic of manufacturing a false consensus in the media is all too relevant to the recent media ‘witch-hunt’ against the Catalyst program “Wi-Fried”, and presenter Maryanne Demasi by sections of the Australian media. This was sparked off following the media release by the Australian Science Media Centre (AusSMC). In that release, Rodney Croft gave his expert opinion (in part) that there “is no substantiated evidence that the low levels of radiofrequency emissions encountered by mobile telecommunications can cause any harm” and after comparing WiFi to orange juice, stated that “we we can be very confident that the emissions are indeed safe”. He also mentioned the international consensus view in this area which is that of ICNIRP.

    How often do we read and hear about this supposed international consensus which does not stand up to even a rudimentary examination? This was thoroughly debunked by my Procrustean Approach thesis but I doubt that it is on the ICNIRP/ACEBR reading list.

    I could, of course go on but instead have a read of the excellent article by Michael Corcoran in Truthout, excerpts follow.

    Read more →
    • 20 FEB 16

    More on Science Media Centre spin on the Catalyst program-this time from the UK branch

    Excerpt:
    Powerwatch in the UK has just posted an excellent piece covering the recent Catalyst program by Maryanne Demasi. IT seems the Science Media Centre in the UK is running a spin as well. To briefly quote from Powerwatch:

    “On Monday 15th February 2016, the UK Guardian newspaper posted an article by Maryanne. Then on Wednesday 17th they published an opposing pieceby a Dr Grimes”

    Dr David Robert Grimes is a young physicist and cancer researcher at Oxford University. In 2014 he jointly won the John Maddox Prize present by the Sense about Science Charity. They, along with the Science Media Centre, claim to present scientific truths to the public.
    SNIP

    Read more →
    • 17 FEB 16

    The AusSMC’s expert advice on the Catalyst program, Wi-fried.

    Excerpt

    Now that the Catalyst program has aired, there is a media frenzy attacking the program with a number of experts canning the whole program and even calling for it to be pulled off the Internet althogether. It is illustrative to go to the source of much of this criticism: The Australian Science Media Centre (AusSMC), who states on their website:

    The Australian Science Media Centre (AusSMC)is an independent not-for-profit service for the news media, giving journalists direct access to evidence based science and expertise. We aim to increase the quality and accuracy of science reporting in the media, and hence the public understanding of science.

    So, AusSMC provides journalists with expert scientists advice on a wide range of issues on their simex website. When it comes to anything to do with Cell phones, wi-fi etc. the experts are primarily from ACEBR and ARPANSA.

    The BIG question however, what is the selection process for experts at AusSMC? The history of the AusSMC is an interesting story to be explored shortly…..
    SNIP

    Read more →
    • 13 FEB 16

    Science for Sale: Making a cancer cluster disappear (Joel Moscowitz)

    For those on this list who do not get the blog postings from Joel Moscowitz’s site I suggest you do so. Below is his latest which reminds me of a number of possible EMR related cancer clusters in Australia which were conveniently made to disappear, such as the brain tumour cases in RMIT Building 108, in Melbourne (2006). SNIP

    From Joel Moscowitz:

    The following article by the Center for Public Integrity documents how the chemical industry protects its interests by co-opting scientists and the public health establishment. The telecom/wireless industry has employed the same playbook originally developed by Big Tobacco to manufacture doubt about the harm of its products. SNIP

    Science and opinion have become increasingly conflated, in large part because of corporate influence. As we explain in “Science for Sale,” an investigative series by the Center for Public Integrity and co-published with Vice.com, industry-backed research has exploded – often with the aim of obscuring the truth – as government-funded science dwindles.
    SNIP

    Read more →