• 21 NOV 14
    • 0

    Expect the usual procrustean approach with the WHO’s forthcoming RF Environmental Health Criteria (EHC) for electrosensitivity

    In one of Dariusz Leszczynski’s latest blog postings (below) on the Wollongong ACEBR/ICNIRP/WHO meeting he identifies the group of ‘scientists’ who wrote the draft of the WHO’s EHC for telecommunications RF exposures. The EHC is an important document for the telecommunications and related industries as it will be used to underwrite the safety of their technology for years to come. Very handy for the coming Internet of Things (IoT), a $19 trillion market which will massively increase human exposure to RF. What is coming from the EHC was seen in Rodney Croft’s presentation at Wollongong where he states the draft WHO EHC found “No evidence of health effects”. Croft even claimed, without irony, that the IARC RF review “found no evidence of health effects” even though it classified RF as “possibly carcinogenic”.

    What will the EHC say about electrosensitivity? Considering that one of the supposed experts helping to draft sections of the EHC is James Rubin, electrosensitivity will be downgraded to simply a psychosomatic condition unrelated to exposure. Andrew Marino’s evaluation of Rubin’s science is illustrative here, to quote:

    James Rubin, King’s College London published a blindingly biased paper in which he argued that there was no such thing as electromagnetic hypersensitivity (no robust evidence). His numerous studies on electromagnetic hypersensitivity are all negative, but that negativity was manufactured by employing experimental designs and statistical analysis that were virtually guaranteed to produce negative results. By means of jaundiced analyses he comes to the conclusion that EHS sufferers have a purely psychosomatic disease, a viewpoint that has untold benefits for his clients and funders, particularly the cell-phone companies.

    His work is a scientific Ponzi scheme in which he gets money from the phone industry effectively by promising negative results, creates and publishes such results, and is then rewarded by the industry with even more funds, like petting a trained dog. The natural consequence of his work is to stigmatize EHS sufferers as neurotics who need the care of a psychiatrist, not an internist or allergist. Rubin is almost a perfect example of a scandalous scientist in a scandalous system that consists of cell-phone companies having enough money to buy any results they want, dependable trained dogs who produce the desired results, and scientific journals such as Bioelectromagnetics that publish the results without properly vetting them, and without insistence on simultaneous publication of conflict-of-interest statements.

    Also See: http://norad4u.blogspot.co.il/2013/02/why-dr-james-robin-ehs-study-is.html
    And: https://www.emfacts.com/2013/02/powerwatch-comments-on-the-very-flawed-rubin-study/
    **************************************************************************

    From Dariusz Leszczynski:

    Who are the scientists preparing EHC draft document

    Posted on November 20, 2014

    In my earlier blogs (blog1, blog2) I complained that it is not known who are the scientists that prepared the draft of the EHC. Eric van Rongen considered this information as unimportant. The same Emilie van Deventer.

    At the ICNIRP meeting in Wollongong, the names of scientists were presented by Emilie van Deventer. You can see them in the images below…

    SNIP

    Access the full article and images here

    Leave a reply →