My three recent columns, written from Australia and published on the Communities pages of the WashingtonTimes.com, deal with expert reviews and re-visit IARC evaluation of cell phone radiation:
August 2, 2012: Implications of IARC evaluation that are not spoken aloud
The IARC classification justifies implementation of the Precautionary Principle, confirms the existence of non-thermal effects and justifies revision of safety standards.
July 24, 2012: Monte Verità: An opportunity that should not be wasted
We need fair debate to counteract and replace the creed with the science. The upcoming 2012 Monte Verità conference has this potential. It should not be wasted.
July 17, 2012: “In Experts We Trust”… or should we?
How reliable and trustworthy are evaluations of science concerning cell phone radiation and health? Are conflicts of interest and lack of real scientific debate leading to scientific demagogy instead of scientific progress?
Yes Doris, the comments are lost. What I have, and will display on my science blog, are only texts of my columns.
Presumably the comments to the published columns will have got lost. And under the various comments, there were often valuable further informations.
I’m just reading the new report from Anders Ahlbohm et al
“RADIOFREQUENCY ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELDS AND RISK OF DISEASE AND ILL HEALTH – Research during the last ten years” . And while reading, I often think what you would have to say.
I hope you will continue your work on the blog.
Your view is in my opinion interesting between all the available information to this subject.
Excellent! Thank you.
I asked The Washington Times Communities to remove all my columns and they have done so. This is why links do not work and take resders to “oops”-pages.
The texts of all my published columns will be made available next week on this science blog site. Currently I am preparing the files for upload.
Has Washington Times removed your articles? The links no longer work. Would you please post them in full text on this blog? What you wrote is important for the public to know.
Your column on IARC is a great reminder that reduction of human exposure to radio frequency radiation is the rational and ethical thing to do.
I recently published a paper showing that from the perspective of thermodynamics, non-thermal interaction of radio radiation with living tissue is well compatible with mainstream physics, it is available here:
Good on ya, mate!