This year the Science & Wireless 2012 event will discuss “Epidemiology, Assessing Risks, Reviewing Standards“.
As stated on the media site of the the local host of the event, Swinburne University of Technology:
“Forum on safety of wireless technology
Leading international experts on wireless devices and health will discuss the latest research around the safety of devices such as mobile phones and phone towers at the Science and Wireless public workshop at Swinburne University of Technology.
Last year the International Agency for Research on Cancer classified Radiofrequency (RF) and Electromagnetic Fields (EMF) as ‘possibly carcinogenic to humans (Group 2B)’, resulting in an unprecedented amount of media coverage...“
The four speakers of the Science & Wireless 2012 event are:
Professor Mark Elwood (University of Auckland) “A Review of the Epidemiology: What does the science tell the community about the use of wireless in everyday life?“
Professor Norbert Leitgeb (German Commission on Radiological Protection (SSK)’s Committee on Nonionizing Radiation) “Hazard Assessment: A critical look at RF-EMF and mobile phones.“
Professor Dariusz Leszczynski (Swinburne University of Technology) “Perspectives on Safety Standards: In the context of IARC 2B classification and the Precautionary Principle.”
Professor Rodney Croft (University of Wollongong and Chief Investigator ACEBR) “An Australian Perspective: The research programme of the Australian Centre for Electromagnetic Bioeffects Research (ACEBR).”
I, personally, very much look forward to the epidemiology review by Prof. Elwood. In his lecture at the June 2012 meeting of the Bioelectromagnetics Society in Brisbane, Australia, he said, and I quote from my two tweets (@blogBRHP) sent out during the Prof. Elwood lecture on June 22, 2012:
“…BEMS in Brisbane: Elwood: epidemiological studies of last 15 years did not provide reliable answers. We are in same place as 15 years ago…”
“…BEMS in Brisbane: Elwood: are we confident that studies inprogress will clarify the question of causation? Epidemiologists seem to think so…”
Other interesting tweets about epidemiology, that I sent during the discussion time of Prof. Elwood’s lecture, came from Michael Repacholi and from Carl Blackman as follows:
“…BEMS in Brisbane: Repacholi: epidemiology has too many flaws and too many biases to give reliable answers about EMF and causality…”
“…BEMS in Brisbane: Repacholi & Blackman: epidemiology is at the limit of what it can do and will not ever give sufficiently reliable answers…”
“…BEMS in Brisbane: Blackman: we need mechanistsic studies because epidemiology is too blunt tool to give answers about EMF and causality…”
As a scientist I fully agree with the comments made by Elwood, Repacholi and Blackman…
IMPORTANT: all lectures and discussions at the Science & Wireless 2012 will be recorded and later freely available on the meeting website, similarly to the availability of lectures and discussions from previous years.
Pingback: Mobile phone radiation and health – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
IARC looks at the whole evidence, though the order of importance is: epidemiology, human volunteer studies, animal studies, in vitro laboratory studies…
IARC supposedly has a logic of classification. If the limited epi. research available was necessary to convince participants to put it at 2B, but you yourself would have preferred 2A, does this not invert IARC logic, by prioritizing the view from “bench” science? Surely it is intuition based on the “whole” body of research examined that makes for classification decision (not to mention other humanly obvious factors). And how whole is/was “whole”?
Epi. studies get blurry, but blurring occurs at the bench, too. Besides, how does lab discovery necessarily relate to whole body health?
Rules of evidence differ for scientists, for courts, for public policy. It is indeed important to distinguish.
No. Hardell studies is science. Court decission is not. Let’s not mix them up.
Scientific reliability of Hardell studies is similar to the scientific reliability of Interphone because both use the same methodological approach. Both Hardell and Interphone rise some red flags but do not prove anything yet. Evidence is not sufficiently scientifically reliable.
Recall bias is the obstacle.
Clearly, Hardell’s studies and the latest Italian court decision refute all that you wrote….