• 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 →