Unethical Reporting – my new opinion in The Scientist Magazine

In the summer of 2010 I published three blogs dealing with Interphone project’s splitting of data and publication of two separate articles (Did INTERPHONE commit… #1, #2, #3) . Nieither of the articles had, according to the authors, enough cases to … Continue reading →

Guest Blog from Mike Repacholi

see also: Leszczynski responds to comments in Repacholi’s guest blog commenting period for this guest blog has ended This is the first guest blog on BRHP. The opinions expressed in it are of Mike Repacholi himself. Publication of these opinions … Continue reading →

Self-contradicting Norwegian report

On Wednesday, September 12, 2012, the Norwegian Institute of Public Health published a report: “Low-level radiofrequency electromagnetic fields – an assesment of health risks and evaluation of regulatory practice” (full report; English summary). The 204-pages long report is written in Norwegian … Continue reading →

• How was the passing OLD YEAR 2011?

As Christmas is over and the New Year 2012 is fast approaching this is the time of the year when we look back at what was achieved during the past 12 months. Let’s briefly look at several areas such as: … Continue reading →

• VIVA Confusion!*

[ * to avoid potential additional confusion - the title of this blog is sarcastic, not what I like to see around] Recent IARC evaluation of mobile phone radiation potential to cause cancer and classification of it as a 2B … Continue reading →

• IARC evaluation, MMF and safety standards

As I have written in my previous blog (published yesterday), IARC classification of mobile phone radiation as 2B category carcinogen – possibly carcinogenic to humans – is a big news. So far, WHO evaluation of mobile phone carcinogenicity was based … Continue reading →

• “Nothing New Under the Sky” – the new WHO Research Agenda

  WHO has released  2010 Research Agenda for Radiofrequency Fields (http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publications/2010/9789241599948_eng.pdf). It is new but, to my great disappointment, there is nothing new. The opinion, as expected is very much influenced by the ICNIRP. Out of the 19 experts who … Continue reading →