• 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 →
    • 30 JAN 16

    Report from the Science and Wireless 2015 event in Australia

    This, must read, report analyzing the various presentations from SCIENCE & WIRELESS 2015 was prepared for the Pandora Foundation and for the Kompetenzinitiative by Dariusz Leszczynski, PhD, DSc (biochemistry) & Kirsti Leszczynski, PhD (physics). Science and Wireless 2015 was hosted at the RMIT University in Melbourne, Victoria, Australia, on December 8, 2015.
    Excerpt:

    Dariusz concludes in part:

    Unfortunately, enthusiastic opinion of the Science & Wireless event has vanished. The S&W events organized in 2014 at the Wollongong University and in 2015 at the RMIT have not much to do with the community interaction between scientists, industry and users. S&W events in 2014 and 2015 were just presentations of science by scientists for the benefit of the industry. The real users of wireless technology, some of whom are concerned with possible/probable health risks, were clearly marginalized in 2014 and 2015. The community participants had no presentations to express their views and opinions and the opportunity to voice opinions in the discussion was severely limited by the time constraints. As of now, the Science & Wireless event cannot be called anymore a ‘Community Interaction’ event.

    Read more →
    • 04 NOV 15

    Goodbye to the “Smart Grid” and hello to the “Hello Grid”

    It had to come: The smart grid industry’s slick public relations campaign to make the smart grid (read: smart meters) more palatable to the uninformed public. To this end, their public relations spin merchants have come up with a brilliant new term for the smart grid. Now its called the “Hello Grid”. Perhaps we can even now call the troublesome smart meter the ‘hello meter’.

    My suggestion is to simply drop the “o”….. Read on.

    NOTE: If the link to this posting does not work please just go to my website www.emfacts.com to access the post.

    Don

    Excerpt:
    Hello Grid is an initiative to share with the community more about the way energy networks across Australia work, and of the exciting changes that are taking place in the system. This intricate system of transmission towers, substations, transformers, poles, wires and smart technology, along with all the people who maintain and manage the infrastructure provides an important service to the community – and is likely to be the vital gateway to a smart and clean energy future.

    SNIP

    Read more →
    • 16 OCT 15

    Here we go again: Science and Wireless Spin 2015

    Playing to the well-worn retro tune of ‘thermoregulatory effects only’ the usual band of thermalists are hosting another so called Science and Wireless conference in Melbourne this year. And to top it all off we have the panel discussion chaired by none other than the eminent Professor Michael Repacholi. Expect the usual whirling dervish spin from this group. Why don’t they ever invite people such as Lennart Hardell to present? The answer to that is obvious.

    Oh! And as for the topic of electrosensitivity expect the answer to be that its all just a psychosomatic disorder by needlessly worrying people.

    Nothing new here….just more Procrustean bullshit.

    SNIP

    Read more →
    • 25 AUG 15

    Science Is No Longer Truth: Death of Democracy and Knowledge (and the next US election)

    From the Dr Mercola web site:

    Following is an excerpt from the end of the excellent article

    When Science Is No Longer the Truth…

    Our society is largely built on the idea that science can help us make good, solid decisions. But now we’re facing a world so rife with problems caused by the very sciences that were supposed to keep us healthy, safe, and productive, it’s quite clear that we’re heading toward more than one proverbial brick wall. In a sense, the fundamental role of science itself has been hijacked for selfish gain. Looking back, you can now see that the preferred business model of an industry was created first, followed by “scientific evidence” that supports the established business model.

    When the science doesn’t support the company’s economic gains, it’s swept under the rug, even if people are dying and the planet is becoming irreparably poisoned as a result. Today we live in a world where chemical companies and biotech giants can easily buy and pay for their own research studies, as well as the lobbying to support whatever legislation they need passed in their favor. Conflicts of interest have become the norm within virtually all fields of science, which creates a completely unworkable – and dangerous – situation in the long run.
    SNIP
    And after you read the above article Google “Hillary Clinton and Monsanto”. For example:

    Read on………

    Read more →
    • 04 AUG 15

    SCENIHR’s Procrustean Approach exposed!

    For some months the International EMF Alliance (IEMFA) has been examining the activities of the SCENIHR working group on Potential health effects of exposure to electromagnetic fields. This supposedly expert group has given the all-clear to telecommunications technology. What stands out with SCENIHR’s risk assessment process is a striking lack of pluralism and transparency. The analysis by a number of IEMFA members has found that SCENIHR’d expert opinion is strongly biased towards corporate, military and economic interests with a strategic need for wireless techniques.- Or as I would put it, SCENIHR follows a classic Procrustean Approach.

    Following are links to IEMFA’s assessment of the SCENIHR spin.
    SNIP

    Read more →
    • 03 MAR 15

    Dariusz Leszczynski: The Power of the Industrial Lobby: The case of tobacco – how about telecom?…

    Excerpt:

    On February 24, 2015, BMJ published document ““Massive” tobacco industry third party lobbying for revised European Directive” about industry lobbying efforts to affect EU legislation. The full document is available here with additional links in it. The BMJ document deals with tobacco, classified by IARC to be human carcinogen (Group 1). According to the IARC monograph there are 1 billion of smokers.Knowing that the tobacco smoke is carcinogenic, the enormous efforts of the tobacco industry, successfully lobbying against EU regulation of tobacco, are astonishing and shocking. Money talks, even if it is against human health. What is more, the EU law was not about forbidding of smoking but but merely about “…an increase in the size of graphic health warnings, a ban on certain flavourings, restrictions on the size and shape of cigarette packs, and regulation of e-cigarettes…” This reminds the cell phone package labeling-wars with the telecom industry – e.g. San Francisco… Industry makes profit but the costs of health care for the people made sick by the industry product is left for us – the taxpayers.
    SNIP

    Read more →
    • 16 FEB 15

    WHO follows the procrustean approach!

    Looks like time is approaching for a need to update my 2010 thesis, especially considering Dariusz Leszczynski’s latest blog.

    Don
    ******************************************************************************************************************

    Excerpt

    Handling an Inquiry – The WHO-style
    Posted on February 15, 2015
    Dariusz Leszczynski

    On December 27, 2014, I sent an e-mail message to Dr. Margaret Chan, Director General of the WHO. In this message I expressed my concern about the process of preparation of the Environmental Health Criteria by the WHO EMF Project.

    Today, on February 15, 2015, I received response to my message. However, my surprise was great when it appeared that the response was sent to me by the Head of the WHO EMF Project, Dr. Emilie van Deventer.

    It seems “strange” that, at the WHO, when expressing concern about the actions of a person, the person in question handles the response to the inquiry/complaint… This means that, of course, the response will “clearly demonstrate” that there is absolutely no reason for any concern.

    Matter closed – the WHO-style.

    SNIP

    Read more →
    • 17 JAN 15

    Forbes Magazine Caves to Industry Pressure

    From Joel M. Moskowitz

    Joel’s comment: An annotated version of the original Forbes article (Jan 12, 2015), “Study Suggests Wi-Fi Exposure More Dangerous To Kids Than Previously Thought,” is available on the The “Take Back Your Power” web site if you wish to compare the original version of this article with the revised version that now appears on the Forbes web site (updated on Jan 14, 2015).

    Forbes Magazine Caves to Industry Pressure

    Coalition to Stop Smart Meters, Jan 13, 2015

    An example of how industry influences news. Two days ago I sent out the original version of an article by Forbes saying that a study showed that wifi could be more dangerous to children than previously thought. Here is the original version of some parts along with the “updates” and a new ending version that is now on the web:

    “More generally, the studies cited in the paper found RF/EMF exposure is linked to cancers of the brain and salivary glands, ADHD, low sperm count, and, among girls who keep cell phones in their bra, breast cancer….

    CHANGED TO:

    “More generally, the studies cited in the paper seek to link RF/EMF exposure to different types of cancer, low sperm count, and other disorders.”

    NEW ADDITION:

    “However, it is important to note that studies such as these need to be taken in their proper context. This particular study is one group’s perspective. It was published in a relatively new and minor journal with limited data sets. They also note that the average time between exposure to a carcinogen and a resultant tumor is three or more decades, thus making it difficult to arrive at definitive conclusions.”
    SNIP

    Read more →
    • 14 DEC 14

    Louis Slesin on the current industry spin over powerline safety

    Excerpt from Microwave News:

    No Cancer Risk from Power Lines,
    Says the New York Times
    Big Score for Industry Scientists
    December 1, 2014
    Last updated
    December 12, 2014

    Still worried about power lines and cancer? That’s so retro, says the New York Times. You’re just stuck in the 1980’s.

    This is what the “newspaper of record” wants you to know about the risk of childhood leukemia from power lines: A “fairly broad consensus among researchers holds that no significant threat to public health has materialized.”

    The full message is told in a new 7+ minute video, produced by the Times’ RetroReport, which boasts a staff of 13 journalists and 10 contributors, led by Kyra Darnton. The video even credits a fact checker. What’s missing is the common sense to do some digging when reporting on a controversial issue.

    If Darnton’s crew had done its homework, they would have realized that their view is based on two industry-friendly researchers, David Savitz and John Moulder. Savitz, now VP for research at Brown University, has come a long way since he first reported that power lines are linked to childhood leukemia back in 1986. Power line EMFs have been very, very good for Savitz’s career. He parlayed that study into a multimillion contract from the electric power industry to study cancer risks among electric utility workers. He found a link to brain tumors. A couple of years later, he paid the industry back by renouncing his own work and that of many others. Now he’s done it again with his original power line study in the new Times video.
    SNIP

    Read more →
    • 14 DEC 14

    Paul Brodeur on the current industry spin over powerline safety

    Conflicts of Interest in Coverage of a Health Issue by the New York Times

    Paul Brodeur, Huffington Post, Dec 12, 2014

    In recent days, employees of The New York Times have posted no fewer than three pieces on the newspaper’s website, asserting that the risk of harm from the electromagnetic fields (EMF) given off by power lines is negligible, and that fears of it are unfounded. Among the postings is a seven-minute video produced by Kyra Darnton for Retro Report, entitled “Long After an 80’s Scare, Suspicion of Power Lines Prevails.” An accompanying article with the same title has been posted by a reporter for Retro Report named Clyde Haberman, and a third piece entitled “A Fresh Look at Power Lines, Cancer and the Dread-to-Risk Ratio” has been put up by a reporter for the newspaper named Andrew C. Revkin.

    The video produced by Darnton and some colleagues at Retro Report relies preponderantly on the testimony of two researchers — David Savitz, who is vice-president for research at Brown University, and John Moulder, director of radiation biology at the Department of Radiation Oncology at the Medical College of Wisconsin.
    SNIP

    Read more →
    • 06 DEC 14

    Microwave News: No Cancer Risk from Power Lines, Says the New York Times

    From Louis Slesin, Microwave News:

    No Cancer Risk from Power Lines, Says the New York Times
    Big Score for Industry Scientists

    Excerpt

    Still worried about power lines and cancer? That’s so retro, says the New York Times. You’re just stuck in the 1980’s.
    This is what the “newspaper of record” wants you to know about the risk of childhood leukemia from power lines: A “fairly broad consensus among researchers holds that no significant threat to public health has materialized.”

    The full message is told in a new 7+ minute video, produced by the Times’ RetroReport, which boasts a staff of 13 journalists and 10 contributors, led by Kyra Darnton. The video even credits a fact checker. What’s missing is the common sense to do some digging when reporting on a controversial issue.
    SNIP

    Read more →
    • 05 DEC 14

    The WHO’s ‘consultation’ on Radio Frequency fields: Environmental Health Criteria Monograph

    Bearing in mind that Rodney Croft has already inadvertently “spilled the beans” by his ill-timed announcement that the WHO’s forthcoming EHC for RF concludes that there is “no evidence of health effects”, people can still ‘consult’ with the folks drafting the criteria until December 15.

    Rumor has it that Dynamo has just been drafted to the WHO’s team. Never know when a little bit of conjuring is needed when dealing with “conflicting research” as Rodney calls it.

    SNIP

    Read more →
    • 26 NOV 14

    Presentations now online from the ICNIRP/ARPANSA/ACEBR Workshop (But where’s Croft’s?)

    Forwarded on by Mary Redmayne who attended the Wollongong meeting:

    Please find below the links to the pdf files of the presentations held at the ICNIRP/ARPANSA/ACEBR Workshop on RF Health Effects and Standards, Wollongong, Australia, 11 November 2014.

    Thank you again for your participation and contribution,

    Kind regards,
    Workshop Secretariat

    http://www.icnirp.org/cms/upload/presentations/rf/RFWshop_Larsson.pdf
    http://www.icnirp.org/cms/upload/presentations/rf/RFWshop_VanDeventer.pdf
    http://www.icnirp.org/cms/upload/presentations/rf/RFWshop_Feychting.pdf
    http://www.icnirp.org/cms/upload/presentations/rf/RFWshop_Sienkiewicz.pdf
    http://www.icnirp.org/cms/upload/presentations/rf/RFWshop_VanRongen.pdf
    http://www.icnirp.org/cms/upload/presentations/rf/RFWshop_Lin.pdf
    http://www.icnirp.org/cms/upload/presentations/rf/RFWshop_Anderson.pdf

    Read more →
    • 24 NOV 14

    Andrew Marino philosophizes on “EMF Experts”

    Quoting from the website of Andrew Marino:

    EMF experts sound erudite, but when they make mistakes they do so in characteristic ways, so they always betray themselves. The environmental science of EMFs consists of both knowledge and justice, so each element should be reflected in the character of anyone who is truly an expert. We can classify the different kinds of mistaken experts based on what they lack.

    There are industry experts who make their living by providing negative judgments, irrespective of what environmental science requires. These experts love money, which they seek above everything else. They see themselves as completely free to say anything in pursuit of money and prestige. Their minds are formless in the sense that they have no idea what truth is.
    SNIP

    Read more →