logo

Corporate influence on Science, government and the military

  • Home
  •  
  • Corporate influence on Science, government and the military
    • 07 OCT 14

    Dariusz Leszczynski on WHO’s RF Environmental Health Criteria

    From Dariusz Leszczynski’s blog, Between a Rock and a Hard Place:

    Excerpt

    WHO draft of EHC for RF is late and incomplete – consultation is futile, at this time

    The very, very long awaited WHO Environmental Health Criteria Monograph on Radio-Frequency Fields (EHC-RF) is finally, but only partly, available. The process of making the EHC-RF is disappointingly slow and disappointingly secretive and disappointingly incomplete. The EHC-RF text published in end of September is clearly incomplete. There are available only chapters #2 through #12. The very important chapters: #1 (Summary and recommendations for further study), #13 (Health risk assessment) and #14 (Protective measures) are missing from the draft that WHO provided for the “consultation”. I wrote purposefully the “consultation” because it can not be real, full-fledged, consultation because it is not possible to discuss and comment on texts that are not yet ready and texts that are simply missing. The missing chapters should deal with health risk assessment and protective measures as well as recommend future research needs. All of the available chapters are incomplete because, as stated on the website, the review of research publications is only till the end of 2012 (!) or in some cases in 2013. Now it is soon the end of 2014 and all research published in 2013 and 2014 is not included in the chapters.
    SNIP

    Read more →
    • 10 SEP 14

    The SCENIHR Report 2014 and The Suppression of Dr. Lennart Hardell’s Science

    From Joel M. Moskowitz, Ph.D. Director, Center for Family and Community Health School of Public Health, University of California, Berkeley
    Center: http://cfch.berkeley.edu

    Based upon a conversation I’ve had with a scientist who spent a year at IARC, there seems to be a cabal of influential scientists who patently dismiss the epidemiologic research on wireless phone use and brain tumor risk conducted by Dr. Hardell and his colleagues. To ignore this path-breaking research is akin to burying one’s head in the sand. Moreover, such anti-scientific behavior is an impediment to the advancement of knowledge and the protection of public health. I suspect that many of these individuals, despite their protestations to the contrary, have serious conflicts of interest due to dependence on the wireless industry for much of their research funding.

    EM Radiation Research Trust recently sent the following letter to the EU Ombudsman regarding SCENIHR Suppression of Science and Dr. Hardell’s Research.

    SNIP

    Read more →
    • 22 AUG 14

    Dariusz Leszczynski on CDC backdown

    From Dariusz Leszczynski:

    Excerpt

    The Anti-Precautionary Principle Lobby at Work… Again…
    Gallery
    Posted on August 21, 2014

    Year 2003

    Louis Slesin, editor of the Microwave News, reported that in the spring of 2003, then the WHO’s EMF Project leaders, Mike Repacholi and Leeka Kheifets announced “that “there is “sufficient evidence” to apply the precautionary principle to both power-frequency and high-frequency electromagnetic fields (EMFs)” (See link to MWN). Soon after, the announcement concerning precautionary approach was removed from the WHO EMF Project’s site. Someone was afraid of the Precautionary Principle and the precautionary approach.
    SNIP

    Read more →
    • 22 AUG 14

    Microwave News update: CDC Calls for Caution on Cell Phones, Then Gets Cold Feet

    From Louis Slesin, Microwave News:

    Excerpt

    August 16, 2014
    Last updated
    August 20, 2014

    The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention –CDC– is the first U.S. health agency to call for precaution in the use of cell phones. (But not for long. As soon as word of the CDC’s new outlook spread, the precautionary advice was withdrawn. Our original story is below, followed by an August 20 addendum.) “Along with many organizations worldwide, we recommend caution in cell phone use,” the CDC stated on its Web site’s FAQ About Cell Phones and Your Health and followed up with a call for more research to answer the unresolved cancer question. The recommendation was posted on the CDC’s Web site on or before June 9. It passed mostly unnoticed until a few days ago when Joel Moskowitz, who writes a blog on Electromagnetic Radiation Safety, sent out a press release announcing the news.
    SNIP

    Read more →
    • 09 AUG 14

    500 million citizens are relying on SCENIHR: Is Science Being Hidden from the Public?

    The European Commission in collaboration with the Greek Atomic Energy Commission (GAEC) under the auspices of the EU Council Greek Presidency organised a major workshop in Athens on EMF electromagnetic fields and health effects with a focus on public awareness, conciliating scientific findings and uncertainties in policy making. The event took place on 27th & 28 March 2014 at Cotsen Hall, Athens, Greece and included presenters from various parties from the European Commission, WHO, public authorities, industry, operators, environmental and consumer associations and academia. The goal of the conference was to reach a common approach for the future in order to respond to public concerns about electromagnetic fields, to enhance information dissemination and discuss new studies and scientific evidence in relation to EMF, and to identify knowledge gaps needed for sound policy making. In this context, the new SCENIHR draft opinion on EMF and potential health effects was presented.
    SNIP
    “As of March 28, 2014 representatives of the telecom industry, government officials, and WHO scientists absolutely, irrefutably have the latest science from Hardell and know that Hardell himself is calling for RF to be classified a Group 1 carcinogen. The clock has now started ticking on liability. No more excuses. SCENIHR, The industry, the EU Commission, and WHO are now fully informed.”
    SNIP

    Read more →
    • 12 MAY 14

    STUK and Finland, where only a single opinion is permitted…

    From the blog of Dariusz Leszczunski, Between a Rock and a Hard Place:

    Excerpt

    This post was updated on May 10, 2014…

    European Union is in an economic crisis. In Finland the official (=government) opinion is that the one and the only way to survive is to remain in EU and retain common currency. There are voices that disagree with this official opinion.

    Several scientists from the University of Helsinki formed in the autumn 2013, the EuroThinkTank. This group of 12 scientists analyzed advantages and dis-advantages of the Finnish membership in the EU. The report of the EuroThinkTank was published on May 6, 2014, unfortunately only in Finnish language.

    The leader of the EuroThinkTank, Professor Vesa Kanniainen, in his explanation why the EuroThinkTank was formed, said the following:

    ”…Yritykset kyseenalaistaa virallinen totuus on nähty vaiettavana toisinajatteluna…” [Attempts to question the official truth were seen as discordant opinions needed to be silenced; free translation DL].

    Professor Kanniainen was also quoted in the news report as saying:

    ”…Suomi on aina yhden totuuden maa, meillä ei ole sellaista traditiota, että arvioitaisiin avoimesti ja analyyttisesti vaihtoehtoisia näkemyksiä…” [Finland is always the place of the single truth only, we have no tradition of an open minded analytical evaluation of different options; free translation DL]

    I do agree with this opinion…..

    SNIP

    Read more →
    • 09 MAY 14

    Further critique of the SCENIHR spin

    From Mona Nielsson,the Swedish Radiation Protection Foundation:

    Excerpt

    April 16, 2014

    Comments on the SCENIHR preliminary opinion on ‘ Potential health effects of exposure to electromagnetic fields (EMF) approved at the 4th plenary of 12 December 2013

    We hereby submit the comments from the Swedish Radiation Protection Foundation, a non-profit organization with the aim of informing and protecting citizens from health hazards of EMF. Our comment focus mainly on the content of the SCENIHR 2013 report on “Health Effects from RF-fields (chapter 3.5) Summary This section of the SCENIHR preliminary opinion provide false, in accurate, misleading and biased information about available research and results from both epidemiological studies on neoplastic diseases (cancer) and studies on other health risks. There is even evidence of scientific fraud or misconduct.

    SNIP

    Read more →
    • 02 MAY 14

    DoD’s Electromagnetic Spectrum Strategy: The military industrial partnership realised

    Dwight Eisenhower once warned about the dangers of a future US military/industrial complex. To quote:
    In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the militaryindustrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.
    http://coursesa.matrix.msu.edu/~hst306/documents/indust.html

    I also examined this in my thesis, how the developmemnt of the IEEE c95.1 RF standard was very much a military/ industry joint effort.
    http://www.emfacts.com/download/Chapter3.pdf

    Reading the below DoD press release from Feb 2014 its obvious Eisenhower’s words of warning have turned out to be all too true.

    SNIP

    Read more →
    • 01 MAY 14

    Breaking News: Industry bias exposed in SCENIHR’s scientific assessment

    From Eileen O’Connor, UK Radiation Research Trust

    Excerpt

    Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks (SCENIHR) member Dr Kjell Hansson Mild has exposed control of science within the SCENIHR group. SCENIHR excluded many studies from the latest scientific review, including five studies by the Hardell Group, published in 2013. Dr. Mild was a co-author with Dr. Hardell. At the same time SCENIHR excluded Dr. Hardell’s and Dr. Mild’s key scientific papers, they promoted Dr. Mild’s participation in SCENIHR as giving balance and transparency to this process. These studies from the Hardell Group are the longest studies on mobile phones and brain cancer. Of even greater significance is Hardell’s conclusion that the proof of mobile phones causing an increase in gliomas — the deadliest of brain tumours, and acoustic neuromas tumours on the auditory nerve.

    The SCENIHR Report fails to do a thorough review of hundreds of papers on non-ionizing electromagnetic fields (EMF) and biological health effects, and excludes literally hundreds of papers containing new information in the field concerning adverse EMR impacts.

    SNIP

    Read more →
    • 24 APR 14

    Microwave News on the Canadian Conflict of Interest Follies

    As Dariusz Leszczynski pointed out in the previous post, the telcos are getting desperate. This is also seen with the Royal Society of Canada’s RF panel. Read on….

    Don

    From Louis Slesin, Editor, Microwave News:

    Earlier this month, a panel of the Royal Society of Canada released a report on Health Canada’s proposal to revise its RF exposure limits. The original chairman of the RSC panel, Daniel Krewski of the University of Ottawa, resigned last summer in the midst of a controversy over his and other panel members’ possible conflicts of interest. We looked into what happened. One lesson to be drawn is that when it comes to such conflicts, anything goes except non-disclosure.

    Read our new story at:
    http://microwavenews.com/news-center/rsc-sc6

    Read more →
    • 23 APR 14

    Is the telecom industry so desperate that it calls for desperate measures?

    From Dariusz Leszczynski’s blog, Between a Rock and a Hard Place

    Excerpt

    In my previous blog I criticized ‘Letter to the Editor’ published in Bioelectromagnetics journal. In it the authors bluntly attacked the IARC Working Group experts for their incompetence. Significantly, one of the co-authors of this ‘Letter to the Editor’ is Dr. Mike Repacholi, former Head of the WHO EMF Project and Chairman Emeritus of the ICNIRP.

    Somewhat simultaneously, with the publication in Bioelectromagnetics, was published in ‘The Indian Express’ an interview with Dr. Siddhartha Mukherjee. The title of this interview-story is “No link between mobile phone radiation and cancer, says Padma awardee doctor“.

    In this interview Dr. Siddhartha Mukherjee calls for an unprecedented action by IARC – to remove cell phone radiation from the list of human carcinogens. Dr. Siddhartha Mukherjee is not calling for new review of the scientific evidence, he is bluntly calling to trash the work of IARC Working Group. It is again, as in Bioelectromagnetics journal but this time in daily news journal, calling the IARC selected experts – incompetent.

    SNIP

    Read more →
    • 19 APR 14

    Industry attack on IARC RF classification: and they dare call it science!

    From Dariusz Leszczynski’s blog, Between a Rock and a Hard Place:

    ‘Letter to Editor’ of Bioelectromagnetics journal: A travesty of science

    Bioelectromagnetics, a peer-review journal of the Bioelectromagnetics Society and the European Bioelectromagnetics Association has just published a ‘Letter to the Editor‘:

    Wiedemann PM, Boerner FU, Repacholi MH. Do people understand IARC’s 2B categorization of RF fields from cell phones? Bioelectromagnetics. 2014 Apr 15. doi: 10.1002/bem.21851

    This publication is the clear attempt to discredit the work of IARC’s invited experts who, as members of the Working Group, classified in May 2011 cell phone radiation as a possible human carcinogen.

    This is not any new situation. Classification of the cell phone radiation as a possible human carcinogen was criticized, right from the start, by ICNIRP and by the industry. Immediately after the classification was made public, ICNIRP’s epidemiologists published contra-opinion saying that the IARC classification is not supported by the epidemiological evidence. The industry had its share of dismissive opinions in attempt to neutralize impact of the classification on the future health policies:

    SNIP

    Read more →
    • 07 APR 14

    Conclusions of the Canadian report confirm that EHS research, and its review, are polluted by the bad science

    From the blog of Dariusz Lesczcynski: Between a Rock and a Hard Place

    Excerpt

    Recent publication of the Canadian report on Safety Code 6 (RF-EMF and health) brought again to limelight the problem of electromagnetic hypersensitivity – EHS.

    Yet again, scientists and lay audiences were fed with the standard mantra in the Canadian report: “The symptoms are real, but what causes them is a mystery”. The same mantra is propagated by WHO, ICNIRP and numerous expert committees.

    I have the feeling that this mantra was introduced to the EMF research area few years ago for the sole purpose to “get the EHS people off our backs”. Designers of this mantra assumed that by showing compassion for the suffering of EHS people they will alleviate tensions that exist between EHS sufferers and decision-makers.

    They were mistaken. The mantra did not alleviate tensions and EHS sufferers more and more forcefully demand solution to their problem. Simple admission that their symptoms and suffering are real is not enough. What is needed is both, precautionary approach and a serious research effort to find out what and how causes EHS.

    Unfortunately the arena of EHS research is polluted with bad science. Badly designed studies waste money and produce bad conclusions. This status quo is perpetuated and new funding is granted for new badly designed studies. Are scientists gone mad? Don’t they understand what they are doing?

    SNIP

    Read more →
    • 03 APR 14

    Canadian “Expert” Panel Presents Disappointing and Biased Review of Current RF Exposure Limits

    From SkyVision Solutions:

    Excerpt

    An expert panel of the Royal Society of Canada (RSC) released a report on April 1, 2014, entitled “A Review of Safety Code 6 (2013): Health Canada’s Safety Limits for Exposure to Radiofrequency Fields.” Although the report is comprehensive at 165 pages in length, it clearly presents a disappointing and biased account of the current state of science on RF exposure effects and what to do in response to those effects.

    As summarized by one Toronto new source regarding the new report, “Federal guidelines that spell out safe exposure levels of radiofrequency waves emitted by cellphones and other wireless devices appear to be mostly adequate, but research to clarify the potential risk of cancer should be aggressively pursued, an expert panel recommends.”

    In other words, there is some evidence that RF exposure might be harmful, but we need more studies to quantify the possible risk. Where have we heard that before?
    SNIP

    Read more →
    • 02 APR 14

    FEATURED EXPOSÉ – WHO Knew: The Elephant in the Room

    A shocking exposé on corruption within World Health Organization ranks, relating to scientific causality of harm from electromagnetic radiation (EMR) Just WHO are they working for? Is the World Health Organization complicit in an unprecedented coverup of skewed science and conflicts of interest?

    An uncomfortable shift could be felt in the room. The Advisor asked one final question: “Would Drs. Wild and Stewart have a problem with people of all ages being exposed to RF radiation 24/7?” Dr. Stewart voiced his opinion in a professorial fashion,“I would have no problem at all.”
    SNIP

    Read more →
    • 18 MAR 14

    How industry manipulates “science” by promoting scientists who support their economic interests

    Lawyer Sue Grey’s below letter to the Editor of the New Zealand magazine North and South is in reply to a just published investigative article by NZ journalist Donna Chisholm. Titled with the leading intro.: “Science for Sale?: With scientists now expected to deliver more economic bang for each funding buck, Donna Chisholm asks if corporate funding is putting their integrity, and the direction of our science, at risk”

    But first a bit of background:

    In September 2011 New Zealand lawyer Sue Grey contacted me with a request to undertake a formal review of the MD thesis by Dr. David Black. As Black had refused to provide a copy for some reason, it took Grey a bit of digging around Auckland University to unearth a copy. It is important to note that it was largely on the strength of his thesis that Dr. Black was elected president of the Bioelectromagnetics Society (BEMS) and invited to be a consulting expert to ICNIRP. Despite these impressive appointments, however, there were serious deficiencies in his thesis.
    SNIP

    Read more →
    • 11 MAR 14

    SCENIHR criticised over its inept approval on dental amalgam.

    In May 2008 SCENIHR issued a report titled, Safety of Dental Amalgam and Alternative Dental Restoration Materials for Patients and Users. The report concluded, in part: “We conclude that dental health can be adequately ensured by both types of material. All the materials are considered safe to use and they are all associated with very low rates of local adverse effects with no evidence of systemic disease.”
    SNIP
    HOWEVER, this report has come under extreme criticism from the International Academy of Oral Medicine & Toxicology – Europe (IAOMT), with its membership restricted to scientists, Medical doctors and dentists. The Scientific Advisory Committee of IAMOT issued a dissenting report on SCENIHR’s dismissing the toxic effects of mercury amalgams. SNIP. They concluded in part: “The SCENIHR report is best described as a Fishing Expedition rather than a scientific document; the omissions speak louder than the inclusions. The only logical interpretation is that the committee has selected data to support a predetermined conclusion as to the safety of dental amalgam.”
    SNIP
    And now the experts at SCENIHR are to give their opinion on the Potential health effects of exposure to electromagnetic fields. According to Dariusz Leszczynski (last message) it is looking like SCENIHR is about to do another almighty spin and dare to call it science.

    Read more →
    • 10 MAR 14

    Dariusz Leszczynski: Very problematic SCENIHR Report

    From Dariusz Leszczynski’s blog Between A Rock and A Hard Place:

    I just finished reading the 2013 SCENIHR Report and got an overwhelming feeling of the utmost desperation. Evaluation of the scientific evidence is being distorted and SCENIHR provides an aura of “legitimacy” to this distortion. SCENIHR report has over 200 pages and it is not possible to mention all problems with it in this short blog. Here are few of the more grave problems with the SCENIHR report.

    Membership of the working group

    I do not know what procedure was applied when the membership of the working group of SCENIHR was assembled. What is clearly seen, is that the vast majority of scientists involved in the working group are known for the opinion that the current scientific evidence shows that RF exposures do not cause detrimental effects to human health. Such composition of the working group is, by itself, a reason for serious concern about possible bias in evaluation of the scientific evidence.

    SNIP

    Read more →
    • 04 MAR 14

    Research “firewalls” – The King is Naked!

    From Dariusz Leszczynski’s blog “Between a Rock and a Hard Place”, March 3, 2014:

    There is talk of “firewalls” between the industry funding research and the scientists executing this research. Are these firewalls providing a real independence of scientists from the funding industry or are they just for the sake of “keeping up appearances”? In practice, how reliable is the system of “firewalls”?

    In my opinion, the currently used system of “firewalls” does not work. Industry sponsors and sponsored scientists are intelligent people. Industry sponsors do not need to say “things” aloud and scientists understand “things” that are not said. In the situation of research data being very ambivalent, the interpretation of the meaning of the results is crucial and should not be in any way influenced by “things” not said…

    SNIP

    Read more →
    • 26 FEB 14

    BRHP Blog: WHO Knew: The Elephant in the Room – guest blog by Susan Foster

    From the blog of Dariusz Leszczynski.Between a Rock and a Hard Place

    This is the next in a series of guest blogs on BRHP. The opinions expressed in it are of Susan Foster herself. Publication of these opinions in BRHP does not imply that BRHP automatically agrees with or endorses these opinions. Publication of this, and other guest blogs, is an attempt to start an open debate and free […]
    SNIP

    Read more →