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. We hereby expose why:
A. Fraudulent and misleading presentation of what studies on brain tumour risks in children, adolescents and adults show;
B. Omission of critical new studies providing evidence of increased risks of malignant brain tumours from mobile phone use;
C. Omission of critical statistical data over increasing trends in brain tumour incidence in some countries;
D. Omission and biased presentation of studies showing increased cancer risks from base stations;
E. Serious omissions of results of studies showing negative effects and health risks from RF – EMF radiation: 144 of 211 new neurological studies show neurological effects (68%)
and 90% of 105 studies show neurological effects of low frequency EMF.
These data show that neurological effects from RF-EMF are clearly established, and not the contrary as proposed by the SCENIHR report. Also damage to DNA from RF-radiation is
reported in 65% of (74 of 114 studies) and in 83% (49 of 59 studies) during the 2006/2007 to 2014 period and many of them are overlooked by the SCENIHR report.
They also show that damage to DNA is sufficiently established as a cause of RF-EMF also in contrast to what is proposed in the SCENIHR preliminary opinion.
SNIP
Leave a reply →