UPDATE: it appears that some readers have problems with seeing videos. This problem might be caused by firewall settings in their computers. If you cannot see videos via links provided in this post, try this link of the SUT
Science and Wireless 2012 was held at Swinburne University of Technology on Thursday 15 November, 2012. The presentations are available for viewing here:
In addition to presentations, interviews with the speakers, recorded in the morning of November 15th are available here:
The main message of my own presentation and my interview is that we do not have sufficient scientific evidence to claim that the current cell phone radiation safety standards protect all users. In this context I am presenting the reasons for implementing the Precautionary Principle.
BRHP - Between a Rock and a Hard Place 
Pingback: Mobile phone radiation and health – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
1. Yes, both hats at the same time, one atop the other, but it’s not sorted out which hat is on top. You maybe mean, that you base your citizen’s opinion strictly on what science as you see it turns up. But that can’t be true, because of:
4. The claim about naivete is certainly not scientific, nor is the claim for net societal benefit, nor is the musing about possibility of sufficiently minimizing harm.
2. There’s science and there’s science. Public health expert, John Goldsmith, can write in ’97 after researching the field, “The notion that non-ionizing radiation, and in particular
radiofrequency radiation, was harmless — the assumption
of innocence — is no longer tenable.” How much further ahead are we? Right from 1997, when cell infrastructure was deployed where I am, health care costs began their upward climb. So did work absentee rates. So did certain types of cancers. So did various strange symptoms in people close to me. It all adds up to “killing” technology.
3. The way it’s put in English in the EU, e.g.
…………………
The precautionary principle enables rapid response in the face of a possible danger to human, animal or plant health, or to protect the environment. In particular, where scientific data do not permit a complete evaluation of the risk, recourse to this principle may, for example, be used to stop distribution or order withdrawal from the market of products likely to be hazardous.
………………….
is not useful for several reasons here.
For one, many years ago some scientists ascertained health danger from
currently allowable exposures. I understand that as techniques get refined, old science is of lesser regard. But that can perpetually hold true. In other words, “scientific data [can] not [ever alone] permit a complete evaluation of the risk”.
In fact, the example in the quote lends credence to my reference to rolling back the technology, replacing, avoiding, protecting from, and on “precautionary” grounds yet. But my logical position is that it is far beyond the point – if one considers the essential history – of precaution.
I think it is great that scientists like yourself make themselves available to the general public. But the general public’s thinking can be clouded not only by lack of exposure to scientific ways, but also by scientists who dare to brave the public square not being self-critical in a thoroughgoing way.
see link http://www.hese-project.org/uk_forum/
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 12. Dezember 2012 um 01:35 Uhr Von: "BRHP – Between a Rock and a Hard Place" <comment-reply@wordpress.com> An: emf-mf@hese-project.org Betreff: [New post] Science & Wireless 2012: Presentations & Interviews ready for viewing
dariuszleszczynski posted: "Science and Wireless 2012 was held at Swinburne University of Technology on Thursday 15 November, 2012. The presentations are available for viewing here:
Professor Mark Elwood (University of Auckland) "A Review of the Epidemiology: What does the scienc"
dyr2,
1. I wear my “scientist hat” and “citizen hat” simultaneously and continuously.
2. Calling the technology “killing” is not supported by the scientific evidence.
3. Precaution is a correct word – please read the EU document on the Precautionary Principle. When applied it has lot to offer.
4. Suggested by you “rolling back the technology” is not anymore scientific question but political and economic one. There is no return to pre-cell phone era and it is naïve to suggest so. What is necessary to do is to make sure that the technology will do as little harm as possible but also that it will work and benefit society as it is now.
No one expects you to alter your pitch for priority research funding in your field. My comments are intended to remind that the boundary between acting as scientist and as citizen making public policy suggestions, is not seamless. Jut as you try to be clear about the science in a useful way, overlooking less than your colleagues tend to, you should be clear about when you are wearing your citizen’s hat and when your scientist’s.
Just by your body language and manner alone, you are probably mostly unlike your colleagues who fail to see things your way, the basic perceptions & logic. But it is feared you share needless tendency to genuflexion before the techno-religion of the day. The world does not need a killing technology, no matter how long it takes for scientists to find their proofs.
Finally, again, expertise in one domain does not necessarily make for linguistic and logical sufficiency in general argument. ‘Precaution’ is a wrong and misleading term to use regarding public rf exposures, very wrong, even if some advocates against the dangers
of wireless don’t realize this either.
of wireless don’t realize this ciency in general argument. ‘Precaution’ is a wrong and misleading term to use regarding publci rf exposures, very wrong, even if some advocates against the dangers of wireless don’t realize this either.
Dear Michael,
Thanks for your support. My opinion is that more of real human physiology should be included in revising, or rather developing, new safety standards. As for now theses standards are rather about ” a bucket with water” and not real human brain.
Best,
Dariusz
Thanks for your comments dyr2 but you did not convince me and I continue to stand by my statements.
(Your posting the links was premature yesterday, only today was I able to hear the discussion & interview by clicking the red link lines.)
Several errors or unfounded statements as before:
1 – That study of higher dose is preferred, e.g. as in devices to the head vs passive exposures from smart meters. The wave charcateristics in each situaion can make for different bioactivity, can it not? On that basis alone, it is not right to lump all together. For further example, higher dose can provoke very different response, as with Volkow & brain sugar uptake, vs, say, unremitting “very low” passive exposures while in bed but in direct view of a base station causing insomnia, or seizures, or tinnitus, or….
Perhaps for other reasons higher dose study preferred, regarding experimental logistics and resources, wanting a quicker result, or to get at what your particular research angle is. But just as that bucket of water is an inadequate model for human brains (except maybe of those who think the status quo is just fine) at least in terms of lack of differentiation, lack of differentiation in terms of wavelength, modulation pattern, low-long vs high-fast, polarization, and so on, all that indicates that preferring high dose exposure for primary study is inappropriate.
Even chasing scarce $, considering the immorality of more involuntary passive exposures, and in light of numerous preliminary studies indicating danger from these, it is not best public policy choice to necessarily allocate $ to study higher dose less involuntary exposures (“less” involuntary, ie not “totally” voluntary, because the lack of information makes for uninformed choice, in which situation totally voluntary = recklessness and should be of no interest to science).
2 – It does not make sense to talk of precaution, when there have been for “tens of years” indications of harm. Precaution properly comes at the outset. Now that this has been loosed upon us regardless, it is more appropriate to talk of avoidance, reduction, elimination, information. You do apply some of these, but these should not be mixed up with “precaution”, given the already long historical context.
I acknowledge my argument in 1 can be turned against me somewhat in 2, in that differentiation among RF irritants can be exploited to claim that a new device is truly new with new characteristics. But then, that is when precaution might apply, most properly to not impatiently loose a pollutant upon creatures, minus close consultation
with those who put public & environmental health properly first. Researchers with few $ are forced to wait $ that may never come; while the already $-rich are impatient for $ increase , a true perversity.
3 – It does not follow from our current situation as described by yourself, that you should simply accept that the general technology need not be rolled back, or even eliminated. A world of other ways for human communication is imaginable.
Dear Dariusz,
This is exactly my position. Although I have no straightforward solution how to proceed with compliance testing, it is most unfortunate that only maximum SAR in 1 g or 10 g is stated while no data are disclosed about SAR in vulnerable tissues (bone marrow, meninges, brain tissues etc.). As standards are now being reviewed and adapted to the changing usage patterns it is highly recommended to include some biological plausibility into compliance testing.
Best wishes,
Michael Kundi
Pingback: Science & Wireless 2012: Presentations & Interviews ready for viewing | EMFacts Consultancy