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?
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:
it is a “private club” where members elect new members without need to justify selection
lack of accountability before anyone
lack of transparency of their activities
complete lack of supervision of its activities
skewed science evaluation because of the close similarity of the opinions of all members of the Main Commission and all of the other scientists selected as advisors to the Main Commission.
I have suggested that the similarity of scientific opinions expressed by the Main Commission members will lead to skewed evaluation of science….
SNIPLeave a reply →