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?