• 02 AUG 12
    • 0

    Implications of IARC classification that are not spoken aloud

    From Dariusz Leszczynski:

    New column in The WashingtonTimes.com

    Implications of IARC classification that are not spoken aloud

    The IARC classification justifies implementation of the Precautionary Principle, confirms the existence of non-thermal effects and justifies revision of safety standards.

    Excerpt:

    MELBOURNE, Australia, August 2, 2012–In May 2011 at the meeting at the Headquarters of the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) in Lyon, France, the Working Group of 30 scientists nearly unanimously classified cell phone radiation as a possible carcinogen.

    This surprising outcome, which went against the opinion propagated by the ICNIRP, was possible because the IARC invited to Lyon not only scientists that agreed with ICNIRP’s opinion but also scientists that disagreed with it. The outcome was a real scientific debate (for more explanation see earlier column).

    Following the IARC meeting, my first idea was that the classification of cell phone radiation as a possible carcinogen will scientifically justify the need for more research and will lead to more research funding to help close the gaps in the knowledge.

    It was very naïve of me to think this way.

    Nothing significant happened to the research effort. In fact, the industry considered the new classification as sort of a “clean bill of health” because cell phone radiation was not classified as a carcinogen.

    There is also no new funding. The recent EU effort to fund in 2013 a single project to the amount of 6,000,000 Euros per 3-year period is a “drop in the sea of needs”. It is like giving a heart patient aspirin instead of a heart transplant.

    SNIP

    Read the full article here:
    http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/between-rock-and-hard-place/2012/aug/2/Implications-IARC-classification-not-spoken-aloud/

    Leave a reply →

Photostream