• 06 JUL 16

    ABC bows to “vested interests” pressure and retracts the Catalyst WI-Fried program and suspends producer

    Excerpt

    Bowing to a barrage of criticism, the ABC has retracted the Wi-Fried program that aired in February 2016 on ABC TV Australia, i.e. it has been removed from the website and it is no longer available.

    ABC has issued a statement on the website here:
    http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/4494933.htm

    On 16 February 2016, Catalyst aired ‘Wi-Fried?’, a program about the safety of wireless devices such as mobile phones.

    The ABC’s independent Audience & Consumer Affairs (A&CA) unit investigated complaints about the program and found that it breached the ABC’s impartiality standards by unduly favouring the unorthodox perspective that wireless devices and Wi-Fi pose significant health risks.

    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 →
    • 01 JUN 16

    Telstra takes over Australia’s new National Cancer Screening Register (NCSR)

    In its 2004 Annual Report, Australia’s Telstra corporation stated, under the heading “Risk factors”, that “the establishment of a link between adverse health effects and electromagnetic energy (EME) could expose us to liability or negatively affect our operations”. This concern is understandable for Telstra – for if a clear trend emerges in cancer statistics that there may be a connection between telecommunications technology and cancer, such as brain cancers from mobile phone use, it would be bad news indeed for Telstra.

    Could this be a factor in Telstra going after control of Australia’s new National Cancer Screening Register, which the government has said “will ensure Australia remained a world-leader in cancer research, prevention and treatment”.

    Will we see the register later enlarged to include brain cancers as well? If this were to be the case then it is not inconceivable that ‘inconvenient’ cancer data could be easily and quietly ‘massaged’ or hidden for the benefit of Telstra’s corporate interests.

    Of course Telstra would never do such a thing would they? LOL!

    The other BIG question is why has the government selected Telstra over far more experienced organizations to take control over the NCSR?

    It will be interesting just who Telstra selects to run the NCSR….the usual suspects perhaps? READ ON.

    Read more →
    • 12 APR 16

    Endocrine disruptors’ link to infertility confirmed (but what is more important?)

    The emerging danger to future human generations from our exposure to endocrine disrupting chemicals which are found in plastics is becoming a major concern in the US and Europe. For example in 2009 ,testing in the US found more than 200 Chemicals in newborn umbilical cord blood. In Sweden in the 1990’s Research supported by the Karolinska Institute found that since 1972 there have been significant annual increases of brominated flame retardants (related to PCBs) in human breast milk.

    Despite the clear scientific evidence that endocrine disruptors pose a substantial risk to public health, the European Commission has refrained from introducing firm measures that would finally limit their use. This is a result of the continuing campaign of maintaining scientific uncertainty from the European chemical/plastics industry sector who argue that it is unscientific to legislate any precautions without first having absolute scientific certainty that harm exists.(Sound familiar?). This viewpoint is clearly seen in the concluding sentence of the following article from Euractive.com.
    SNIP

    Read more →
    • 09 APR 16

    Science for Sale: US Senators seek better conflict disclosures for scientific articles

    Excerpt

    From the Center for Public Integrity

    March 31, 2016

    Excerpt

    Citing a recent Center investigation, lawmakers express ‘growing concerns about objectivity’ of research in a letter to the National Institutes of Health

    Citing the Center for Public Integrity’s recent “Science for Sale” series, a group of U.S. senators has asked the National Institutes of Health to make it easier to tell who funds research published in scientific journals.

    Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Connecticut, on Wednesday released a letter sent to NIH Director Francis Collins asking that the National Library of Medicine make changes to its public database of 25 million journal articles, called PubMed, to reveal conflicts of interest in research.

    “With industry now employing more scientists than nonprofits, universities and the government combined, and industry funding the research of many independent researchers, there are growing concerns about objectivity in numerous scientific disciplines — including nutrition science and research on health risk from chemicals,” the letter said.

    The letter also cited a New York Times story about Coca-Cola Co. quietly funding academic researchers who blamed lack of exercise, rather than soft drinks and fast food, for the epidemic of obesity and diabetics.
    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 →
    • 10 MAR 16

    The Swedish No-Risk project (new link on my home page)

    Excerpts
    During the mid 1990s while I was doing research for the Australian Democrats Senator Robert Bell I was communicating with researchers from Swedish Union of Clerical and Technical Employees in Industry (SiF). They were investigating a range of health hazards being found in modern IT office-places and were looking for international partnerships with other trade unions who were interested in this issue. Fortunately they sent me a number of English-language SiF publications on their “No-Risk in the IT environment” project which are now available on my website.

    Background

    During the 1990’s the Swedish Union of Clerical and Technical Employees in Industry (SiF) instigated research into reports of ill-health from workers in the modern information technology (IT) workplace. The research team at SiF were concerned that the modern IT workplace may be creating new and serious risks to health, as a result SiF initiated the No-Risk project which aimed at addressing possible health hazards in the modern office-place. In 1999 SiF initiated the “Healthy Office project” in partnership with the LuleÃ¥ University of Technology (LTU). However due to corporate and government concerns that the SiF No-Risk and the Healthy Office projects were a threat to the introduction of new technology, the projects were totally closed down with people sacked and all publications withdrawn from circulation and destroyed. For all intents and purposes the SiF No Risk /Healthy Office projects were as if they never happened – replaced a new trade union focus on “psycho-social” issues. Meaning: If you get sick in the workplace and its not an obvious illness such as the flu, you just might be suffering from a psychosomatic illness.

    SNIP

    Read more →
    • 23 FEB 16

    The UK’s Science Media Centre model of science communication: An uncensored history

    Excerpt:

    Early in the research for my PhD thesis, The Procrustean Approach: Setting Exposure Standards for Telecommunications Frequency Electromagnetic Fields (2010), I examined the UK’s Science Media Centre (SMC) as an example of how science can be manipulated by a supposedly scientific organisation with a hidden agenda to support vested interests.

    As this was not directly relevant to my thesis topic: RF standard setting, the resulting paper was not used in the thesis. However, I became interested in revisiting the topic when the Australian Science Media Centre (AusSMC) published on their scimex website expert criticisms on a recent Catalyst program “Wi-Fried” , which included statements (in part) from the following organisations:
    SNIP
    And so, with no apologies, here is my 2006 uncensored history of the SMC model of science communication.

    Read more →
    • 13 FEB 16

    Does the Victorian Radiation Advisory Committee have a conflict of interest issue… and does the government really care?

    I have previously written about this issue on my blog in November 2012 but nothing has changed since at the Victorian Radiation Advisory Committee, so here we go again!

    On January 22, 2016, I received a letter from a Victorian resident who is concerned about the roll-out of smart meters in that state. Attached to his letter was a letter sent to him by Lily D’Ambrosio MP, the Victorian Minister for Industry and Minister for Energy and Resources. D’Ambrosio tried to reassure the resident that smart meters were perfectly safe by quoting advice given to the Victorian government by Victoria’s Chief Health Officer. The VCMO, in turn, relies on the expert advice from the Victorian Ministerial Radiation Advisory Committee, an expert advisory board consisting of doctors and experts in the field of radiation. It would be a brave politician indeed who dares question this expert body. After all they are the experts, not to be questioned by lessor mortals. The advice given by this committee is that “that there is no substantive evidence to suggest that exposure to radiofrequency radiation such as from smart meters can increase the risk of chronic health effects, such as cancer”. 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 →
    • 04 FEB 16

    Science for Sale by David Lewis: recommended reading

    Following a similar vein as the last blog message,”Report from the Science and Wireless 2015 event in Australia” the 2014 book, Science For Sale by David Lewis PhD is relevant reading. The sub title is:

    How the US government uses powerful corporations and leading universities to support government policies, silence top scientists, jeopardize our health, and protect corporate profits.

    However the title would be just as accurate if it alternatively read: How powerful ‘US corporations use the government, etc’- considering the “revolving door” between corporate America and the government where govt. agencies are effectively given over to corporate control in exchange for large election donations. If it was in a 3rd World country it would be condemned as outright corruption. In the USA however, its just accepted as business as usual…

    From the book:

    The government hires scientists to support its policies; industry hires them to support its business; and universities hire them to bring in grants that are handed out to support government policies and industry practices. Organizations dealing with scientific integrity are designed only to weed out those who commit fraud behind the backs of the institutions where they work. The greatest threat of all is the purposeful corruption of the scientific enterprise by the institutions themselves. The science they create is often only an illusion, designed to deceive; and the scientists they destroy to protect that illusion are often our best…

    Review by Robert F. Kennedy Jr.:

    “David Lewis has been a beacon of integrity against the apocalyptical forces of ignorance and greed endeavoring to divert science from the noble pursuit of truth and pervert it into a tool that supports the most destructive policies of industry and government.”

    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 →
    • 14 JAN 16

    NCRP Nixed Cell Phone Safety Advice Told CDC To Delete Cautionary Recommendation

    From Microwave News

    Excerpt

    The National Council on Radiation Protection, an organization chartered by the U.S. Congress, pressured the Centers for Disease Control to remove any reference to “caution” in its fact sheet on the use of cell phones. The NCRP was disturbed by the interpretation that CDC was endorsing “precaution.”

    SNIP

    Read more →
    • 13 SEP 15

    Dr Karl Kruszelnicki gets his science facts so terribly wrong

    This morning (Sunday) on the ABC breakfast TV program, Australia’s well known science presenter and resident expert on all things, Dr Karl Kruszeinicki was interviewed on reports of dangers from Wi Fi and mobile phones. No transcript yet but to briefly summarize Dr. Karl’s viewpoint he saw no dangers other than heating (the old thermal paradigm) and actually said that the WHO had examined the issue and “found nothing”. For a scientist to get his facts so wrong on a nationwide ABC broadcast is inexcusable. Nothing was said about the WHO’s agency, the International Agency for Research on Cancer’s (IARC) classification of radiofrequency as a possible human carcinogen. Nothing about Hardell’s findings, just a highly public all clear for the telco industry and the government’s pro-telco policy. Interestingly there was a brief flash in the program showing the The “International EMF Scientist Appeal” which asks the Secretary General and UN affiliated bodies to encourage precautionary measures, to limit EMF exposures, and to educate the public about health risks, particularly to children and pregnant women. Kruszeinicki did not refer to this Appeal and so it was apparent that the point to his whole presentation was a subtle casting of doubt over the Appeal’s claims. Did Kruszeinicki even bother to read and consider the Appeal before attacking it? Perhaps not considering the time when he previously went on air spruiking a government policy without even taking the time to read the report which he was being paid to publicise – and regretted it later.

    Take his support of the Abbot government’s Intergenerational Report which downplayed climate change for example:

    Read more →
    • 09 SEP 15

    20 Organisations Complain to the European Commission about the SCENIHR 2015 Opinion

    From the International EMF Alliance:

    The Complaint from 20 organisations to the European Commission about the SCENIHR 2015 opinion on health effects from electromagnetic fields was sent on September 2, 2015 to Commissioner Vytenis Andriukaitis, Director General Xavier Pratsmonne, Deputy Director General Martin Seychell, Director John F. Ryan, Mr Stefan Schreck. We encourage you to post the complaint on your websites and send it to your national and European political representatives. We also encourage you to inform journalists and the media about the inacceptable biased expert report on EMF health effects from the European Commission. This has been going on for years, it has to stop. The experts behind the SCENIHR report are not representative of the scientific expertise in the field. They only represent the industry friendly single side of the expertise, in well known contrast to the opinion of a large and increasing number of scientists in the EMF scientific arena.

    As an example, SNIP

    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 →
    • 29 JUN 15

    FCC: ‘Prime Example of Institutional Corruption’

    In a new publication just released from Harvard University, Norm Alster examines how the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is dominated by the industries it presumably regulates.

    “The FCC‘s network of corruption doesn‘t just shield industry from needed scrutiny and regulation on matters of public health and safety. Sometimes it just puts its hand directly into the public pocket and redistributes that cash to industry supplicants.”

    “The General Accounting Office (GAO) has issued several reports citing fraud, waste and mismanagement, along with inadequate FCC oversight of the subsidy program. Bribery, kickbacks and false documentation can perhaps be expected in a handout program mandated by Congress and only indirectly supervised by the FCC. But the scope of fraud has been impressive.”
    SNIP

    Read more →
    • 26 JUN 15

    IARC Conflict of Interest Statement Updated

    From Louis Slesin, Microwave News:

    Lancet Oncology, the journal which published the official announcement of IARC’s decision to designate RF radiation as a possible human carcinogen, has issued a correction to the conflict of interest (COI) statement it had included for Niels Kuster, the Swiss researcher and entrepreneur based in Zurich. Kuster attended IARC’s evaluation of RF radiation in May 2011 as an “invited specialist.”

    While this correction adds some important details, no one should lose sight of the fact that IARC invited three representatives from industry to be observers at the meeting, while barring attendance of the press.

    Read more →