logo

Tobacco science and the art of spin

  • Home
  •  
  • Tobacco science and the art of spin
    • 29 APR 14

    BioInitiative Working Group exposes SCENIHR process irregularities

    The BioInitiative Working Group has reviewed the Preliminary Opinion on Potential Health Effects of Exposure to Electromagnetic Fields (EMF) dated November 29, 2013. We have submitted detailed comments and suggested revisions. We hope these suggested revisions will be incorporated in the Final Opinion.

    Further, we are aware that one of our BioInitiative Working Group members, Dr. Kjell Hansson Mild, is also a member of the SCENIHR Advisory Group. It has come to our attention that Dr. Mild’s name has been used by you to give the impression that the process has been balanced and transparent, and that his participation is legitimizing the opinions expressed within that preliminary Opinion.

    In fact, Dr. Hansson Mild has substantial disagreement with the process to date. He has told the Committee (Dr. Schuz in particular) that several key papers on which he is co-author have been systematically disregarded. These papers were within the timeframe for review, and are relevant. They provide evidence that the link between mobile phone use and glioma and acoustic neuroma are strengthened, not weakened as the preliminary Opinion concludes. That conclusion is possible only by excluding key evidence, and Dr. Hansson Mild has brought this to the attention of the Committee. We hope you will look into this matter, and provide counsel to the Committee to make this situation right.

    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 →
    • 10 APR 14

    Is Science Being Hidden from the Public?

    Eileen O’Connor, Director, Radiation Research Trust

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

    9 April 2014

    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

    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 →
    • 26 MAR 14

    ICNIRP’s procrustean hegemony under attack in the EC.

    In the following article, the GSMA (the telco trade association representing the interests of mobile operators worldwide), bemoans the fact that their planned rollout of 4G/LTE technology in the EC is being hampered by what they call “non-science based restrictions on mobile phone antennas in some member countries”. No doubt that GSMA is also worried about the future rollout of 5G.

    This shows that ICNIRP’s assurances of safety, based solely on thermal considerations, is seriously being questioned and rejected in the EC. Hopefully this ‘contagion’ will spread internationally. What is not said is that the EC doubts over ICNIRP flow directly from the widespread awareness of the Bioinitiative report.
    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 →