• 29 NOV 16

    Has the WHO EMF Project been hijacked by ICNIRP?

    From Lennart Hardell’s blog:

    Has the WHO EMF Project been hijacked by ICNIRP?

    Recently the following appeal has been posted at http://olgasheean.com/who-emf/ .
    Sign this VOTE of NO CONFIDENCE in WHO’s EMF Project ….SNIP

    [Commentary from Lennart Hardell and Michael Carlberg]

    IARC as part of WHO evaluated radiofrequency (RF) radiation in May 2011 and concluded it to be a possible human carcinogen, Group 2B. However, in a fact sheet issued by WHO in June 2011 shortly after the IARC decision it was stated that ‘To date, no adverse health effects have been established as being caused by mobile phone use’.

    WHO has still not acknowledged health risks form RF radiation: ‘No major public health risks have emerged from several decades of EMF research, but uncertainties remain’.

    WHO plans to publish in 2017 an Environmental Health Criteria Monograph on RF radiation. It has been open for comments and parts of our letter to WHO is shown below: SNIP

    Read more →
    • 25 NOV 16

    CORPORATE TIES THAT BIND: An Examination of Corporate Manipulation and Vested Interest in Public Health

    This forthcoming book (February 2017) is timely reading as we are now seeing a well-orchestrated tactic by various industry front groups and their “fellow travelers” to create a false scientific consensus in an effort to kill-off controversial health and environmental issues which threaten various industries.

    SNIP

    Read more →
    • 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 →
    • 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 →